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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the output fields and the dropping of query/fragment, which is useful. It does not clarify that the other eight schema parameters are essentially irrelevant after checks, nor does it describe error behavior or edge cases.

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 sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the dropped query/fragment detail is a meaningful behavioral qualifier. Every word earns its place.

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 description is adequate for the core task and defines the return value despite the absence of an output schema. However, it is lean given the 9-parameter schema and many sibling tools; it does not explicitly say that only `url` should be used or when to prefer this over other URL-related 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. The description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond implying the `url` parameter is the one being normalized; it does not compensate for the noisy optional parameters, but the schema already documents each one.

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 and resource: return origin, host, and path for a URL. It also notes that query and fragment are dropped, which is a precise behavioral detail. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling URL-related 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?

The intended use is implied: use this when you need normalized URL components without query or fragment. However, no alternatives are named, and there is no direct guidance about when not to use this tool versus sibling tools.

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