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

The description discloses an important behavioral trait: query strings and fragments are dropped. However, with no annotations provided, it does not clarify other normalization behaviors such as handling of invalid URLs, default ports, case, or trailing slashes.

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 extremely concise, front-loads the core behavior, and every sentence adds value. There is no filler or redundant detail.

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 nine optional parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the two-sentence description is insufficient. It does not explain which parameters are relevant, what the return format looks like, or how to avoid passing unrelated fields.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. However, the description does not clarify that `url` is the primary parameter or explain how the many optional fields like `ref`, `city`, `feed`, `json`, and `zone` relate to URL normalization, leaving invocation ambiguous.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it returns origin, host, and path for a URL. It clearly explains what the tool does and what output to expect, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling URL-related tools.

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 siblings like browser-url-ok, web-fetch, or figma-url-shape. The description only states what it does, not the context in which an agent should choose it.

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