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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the output components and the query/fragment dropping behavior. However, it does not explain how the many other schema parameters like city, feed, or json are handled, nor does it describe validation or error behavior, leaving a meaningful transparency gap.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler: it states the result first, then the transformation. It is easy to parse, though it is arguably too terse given the complexity of the nine-parameter schema.

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 nine optional parameters, no output schema, and many siblings, the description is not complete enough. It doesn't state whether url is effectively required, what happens with no arguments, what the return format looks like, or why the schema includes so many unrelated fields like city and query. An agent could easily invoke it incorrectly.

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 input schema already documents all nine parameters and the baseline is 3. The description adds some context about URL query/fragment handling, but it does little to clarify why unrelated parameters such as city, feed, json, and zone are present in the schema for a URL-normalization tool.

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 core behavior: 'Return origin, host, and path for a URL' and explicitly says 'Query and fragment are dropped.' This gives a specific verb, resource, and result, which differentiates it from URL-checking siblings like browser-url-ok. However, it doesn't name alternatives or reconcile the broad input schema, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 implies when to use the tool: whenever an agent needs the origin, host, or path of a URL with query/fragment stripped. But it provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparison with sibling tools such as fetch-status or browser-url-ok, leaving the routing mostly to inference.

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