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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It transparently states the output fields and that query/fragment are discarded, giving an agent a clear expectation of return shape. It does not mention error handling, validation, or whether non-url parameters have any effect, leaving some behavior undisclosed.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the primary result and adds the caveat about query/fragment without redundancy.

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 9 parameters, none required, and no output schema, the description is too terse to fully disambiguate which parameter drives normalization (e.g., 'url' vs 'feed'). It also omits any mention of parameter precedence or what happens when multiple parameters are supplied, so an agent may not invoke it correctly.

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 details beyond implying the 'url' parameter is the primary input, which is already clear from the schema. No bonus.

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 ('Return') and resource ('URL'), and clearly names the output components (origin, host, path). The behavior of dropping query and fragment further distinguishes it from URL look-up or fetch tools, though it doesn't name sibling alternatives explicitly.

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 statement 'Query and fragment are dropped' gives an implicit when-not-to-use: if the caller needs query/fragment, this tool is unsuitable. However, no explicit alternative or selection condition is provided, and the 9 sibling tools are not referenced, so guidance is weak.

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