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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does add a useful transformation detail: query and fragment are dropped. However, it does not explain normalization behavior (e.g., default ports, punycode, trailing slashes) or potential failure modes, so it is only partially transparent.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the main output and the key transformation. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or 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?

The tool has 9 parameters, 0 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description only covers the happy-path output for a URL. It is not complete enough for an agent to confidently call this tool, especially given the confusing parameter list and the presence of many URL-related sibling tools.

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 even without additional parameter explanation in the description. The description does clarify that URL query and fragment are discarded, but the 9-parameter schema remains confusing and the description does not resolve why many parameters appear unrelated to URL 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 a specific verb ('Return') and a precise resource/output set ('origin, host, and path') for a URL, making the tool's core purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling URL-related tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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 given about when to prefer normalize-url over siblings like browser-url-ok, figma-url-shape, domain-shape, or web-fetch. The description is purely functional and leaves all selection logic to inference.

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