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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose that query and fragment are dropped, which is a useful behavioral trait not in the schema. However, it does not mention that most schema parameters are ignored, nor does it describe error behavior or the exact return format.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action and output. There is no wasted wording or redundant information, making it very efficient.

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's schema includes many seemingly unrelated parameters (city, json, zone, etc.) that the description does not explain. There is also a discrepancy between the schema's 8 displayed properties and the stated parameter count of 9. Without an output schema or annotations, the description leaves critical invocation details, such as which parameters are actually used and the return structure, unclear.

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 each parameter is already described. The main description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's mention of 'query and fragment' refers to URL parts, not input parameters.

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 tool's function: return origin, host, and path for a URL, with query and fragment dropped. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from generic tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling shape-check tools like domain-shape or figma-url-shape.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions that would help an agent choose between normalize-url and sibling tools such as browser-url-ok or domain-shape.

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