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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It clearly says output comprises origin, host, and path and that query and fragment are dropped, which implies a pure parse. It does not mention invalid-URL behavior, protocol restrictions, or whether any network access occurs, leaving some gaps.

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, zero filler, purpose front-loaded. Both sentences earn their place by defining output and exclusions.

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 pure URL-normalization function, the core contract is stated: returned components and dropped parts. But the tool exposes nine optional parameters and no output schema, so the description does not fully disambiguate which parameters are relevant or what happens on malformed input.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the fact that query and fragment are dropped from the URL input, but it does not explain how the other eight optional parameters relate to normalization; the schema descriptions already label them.

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 names a specific verb and resource: return origin, host, and path for a URL. It also states the key exclusion that query and fragment are dropped, which makes the tool's purpose concrete and distinguishable from URL-check or shape siblings.

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 an implied usage: call this when you need URL components without query or fragment. However, the description never says when not to use it or names an alternative from the sibling list, such as domain-shape or figma-url-shape.

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