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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses a meaningful behavior (query and fragment are dropped) and the output components, but it does not state that the extra schema fields are ignored, how invalid URLs are handled, or what exact response format is returned.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The primary result is front-loaded and the behavioral caveat follows immediately.

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 tool has nine optional parameters and no output schema, but the description only addresses the URL case. It does not clarify which parameters to supply, why the other fields exist, or what happens when multiple parameters are provided, making the call ambiguous for an agent.

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 no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; it does not identify url as the primary input or explain how the many optional fields relate to normalization.

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 clearly states the action: normalize a URL and return origin, host, and path, with query and fragment dropped. This differentiates it from validation-focused siblings like browser-url-ok and fetch-status, though it does not name any alternative.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to choose normalize-url over sibling tools such as browser-url-ok or figma-url-shape. The description gives no context, prerequisites, or exclusion conditions, so the agent must infer usage from the tool name and schema.

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