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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait: query and fragment are dropped from the returned URL components. However, it does not state return format, failure behavior, validation rules, or whether any network activity occurs, so the disclosure is partial.

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 tightly written sentences with the main return value front-loaded and no filler. Every phrase 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?

For a tool with no output schema, no annotations, nine optional parameters, and a large family of URL-related siblings, this description is too sparse. It omits the output format, prerequisites such as requiring url, and any decision guidance among the sibling tools, so an agent cannot fully determine correct invocation.

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 parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; it only implicitly highlights url as the relevant input. The many unrelated optional parameters remain confusing, 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 states a concrete operation — return origin, host, and path — and specifies that query and fragment are dropped, which distinguishes URL normalization from the many sibling URL/check tools. It is clear enough that an agent can tell what the tool does, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or define the exact output shape.

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 use normalize-url versus siblings such as browser-url-ok, figma-url-shape, domain-shape, web-fetch, or citation. The description does not mention context, exclusions, or alternatives, leaving the choice entirely to inference.

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