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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal a meaningful trait: the tool drops query strings and fragments while returning only origin, host, and path. However, it does not mention potential error behavior, handling of invalid URLs, or how unrelated schema parameters are treated.

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 brief and front-loaded, with every sentence carrying information. It loses a point because, given the unusually large and mixed parameter list, a slightly fuller description could have clarified the core URL parameter without becoming verbose.

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 schema exposes nine optional parameters including city, feed, json, zone, and ref, many marked as discarded. The description does not explain why these appear on a URL-normalizing tool, which parameter is the primary input, or what output format to expect beyond three components. No output schema or annotations exist to fill these gaps.

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 direct parameter-level meaning beyond stating that URL query and fragment components are dropped; the schema already documents each parameter's purpose.

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 action and resource: 'Return origin, host, and path for a URL.' This clearly distinguishes normalize-url from sibling validation/checking tools like browser-url-ok, playwright-url-ok, and domain-shape, which focus on validity or shape checks rather than extracting normalized components.

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 choose this tool over alternatives, no explicit exclusions, and no mention of preferred use cases. The only behavioral note, 'Query and fragment are dropped,' is a cautionary detail but not a usage guideline for selecting between tools.

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