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

With no annotations, the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It does state that query and fragment are dropped, which is useful, but it fails to reconcile the description with the 9-parameter schema: many parameters such as ref, city, json, and zone are not mentioned, and the description does not say whether they are ignored or how invalid URLs are handled.

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 that states the operation, the outputs, and the dropped components with zero filler. 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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the presence of 9 optional parameters, and a large set of sibling tools, a one-sentence description is insufficient. It does not describe the output format, explain the role of the non-URL parameters, or clarify which sibling scenarios this tool is meant for.

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?

The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond identifying `url` as the relevant input, and the use of 'query' is potentially confusing because the schema defines a `query` parameter as search text rather than a URL query string.

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 result: 'Return origin, host, and path for a URL' and notes that query and fragment are dropped. This distinguishes it as a URL normalization/parsing tool, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from URL-related siblings such as figma-url-shape 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?

There is no guidance about when to use normalize-url versus any of the URL-related sibling tools, nor any mention of when not to use it. The only implicit hint is the tool name and the phrase 'for a URL,' which is not enough to route an agent confidently.

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