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

The description discloses a meaningful behavioral trait: query strings and fragments are dropped from the output. However, with no annotations and a schema containing nine unrelated optional parameters, the description does not clarify how those parameters are treated or what happens with invalid URLs.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core output behavior is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds meaningful detail without redundancy.

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 parameters, no required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain which parameter is the primary URL input, why the other parameters exist, or what the exact output format looks like, making correct invocation ambiguous.

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 schema already documents each parameter. The description adds little beyond that, aside from mentioning that query and fragment are dropped, which is not clearly mapped to the schema's 'query' property since that property is described as search text.

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 action and resource: return origin, host, and path for a URL. It adds useful precision by saying query and fragment are dropped, but it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling URL-related tools such as figma-url-shape or browser-url-ok.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. An agent must infer from the tool name alone that this is the right choice for URL normalization.

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