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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that query and fragment are dropped and that only origin, host, and path are returned, but it fails to state that the operation is read-only or that all parameters except 'url' are discarded, which is especially pertinent given the 9-parameter schema.

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 wasted words. The core behavior is front-loaded, and each sentence contributes a distinct piece of information: what is returned and what is removed.

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 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It leaves unanswered questions about whether the other parameters are accepted, what happens on malformed URLs, and whether any network access or side effects occur.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds modest value by indicating what the 'url' parameter produces (origin, host, path), but it does not clarify how the other parameters relate to the tool—even though their schema descriptions say they are discarded. An agent still must infer that 'url' is the primary parameter.

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 specific verb ('Return') and resource ('origin, host, and path for a URL'), and it specifies the transformation ('Query and fragment are dropped'). This clearly identifies what the tool does and distinguishes it from generic URL validators, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like browser-url-ok 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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as web-fetch or domain-shape. It also does not mention that the other eight schema parameters are irrelevant to the URL normalization task, leaving an agent without direction on what to pass or what to avoid.

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