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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that query and fragment are dropped, which is useful, but it omits critical behavioral details: the return format (separate fields vs. combined string), handling of the other schema parameters (host, json, zone), and any edge cases (e.g., invalid URLs, non-HTTPS). The description is only partially transparent.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes an important behavioral detail. It is appropriately sized with no wasted words, though it could benefit from a second sentence to cover the other parameters or return format.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It explains only the URL handling but does not address the json, host, or zone parameters, nor does it describe the output shape. An agent cannot fully understand how to call this tool correctly for all possible inputs, making the definition inadequate for its complexity.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema: it implies the 'url' parameter is the primary input, but it does not clarify the roles of 'host', 'json', or 'zone', which appear unrelated to URL normalization. The schema already describes each parameter, so the description provides little extra meaning.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Return origin, host, and path for a URL' and specifies that query and fragment are dropped. It is specific and actionable, though it does not differentiate from sibling tools like citation or domain-shape, which might also handle URL components.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving an agent to infer when normalization is appropriate compared to sibling tools that might be more specialized.

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