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

The description adds a meaningful behavioral detail: query and fragment are dropped, and the operation is an obvious pure transformation. However, with no annotations, it does not fully carry the burden since it omits output format, invalid URL handling, and the fact that many schema parameters are unrelated to the stated behavior.

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?

Two focused sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the output, the second defines an exclusion. It is front-loaded and free of filler.

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?

For the primary url use case the definition is adequate: the agent can infer the intended parameter and expected output. However, with 9 optional parameters and no output schema, a short note that other fields are ignored would make it much more complete and remove ambiguity around feed, host, and path.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that the url parameter is central and that query/fragment are discarded, but it does not clarify the role of the many other optional parameters or that only url should normally be supplied.

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 operation: normalize a URL and return origin, host, and path. It also explicitly scopes the behavior by saying query and fragment are dropped, making it easy to distinguish from sibling URL tools like browser-url-ok or web-fetch.

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?

It implies the tool should be used when an agent needs the origin, host, or path portion of a URL, and the query/fragment caveat warns against using it when those parts are needed. However, it does not name alternatives or provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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