Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety bar is low. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: it performs no network visit to the destination, and it returns evidence-bounded output plus a canonical tool URL. It does not, however, explain what normalization actually does to parameter names or values.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences with the primary action front-loaded and the two behaviors stated before the return-behavior note. No filler and nothing that could be cut without losing information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The rich annotations and an existing output schema carry much of the burden, and the description covers the no-fetch behavior and return shape at a high level. The gap is the semantics of the required mode parameter, specifically what 'normalize' changes, which leaves an agent guessing about the primary behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It enumerates example utm_* parameters for url and its verb pair maps onto the mode enum (normalize/remove), which is real added meaning. Still missing: the url maxLength constraint and any definition of the normalization rules or how unknown/non-standard params are treated.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names specific verbs and resource: normalize UTM naming or remove standard utm_* parameters from a URL. That is well beyond a restatement of the title, but it never distinguishes itself from siblings such as toolfound_campaign_links or toolfound_inspect_public_link, which plausibly also touch campaign URLs.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The two operating modes (normalize vs remove) imply when each behavior applies, and the no-fetch clause hints at a use case distinct from link inspection. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative to route to.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.