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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state one concrete behavior: query and fragment are dropped. But it does not mention handling of invalid URLs, case normalization, default ports, or output format, which are relevant for a normalization tool. The unrelated schema parameters further muddy expectations.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the primary output and then states the key processing detail. It is concise and easy to parse, though it omits necessary context that would improve usefulness.

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 annotations, no output schema, and multiple seemingly unrelated parameters, this description is insufficient. It does not explain how to invoke the tool with the correct parameter combination, what the return value looks like, or how the 'json' and 'zone' parameters factor in. An agent cannot confidently call this tool based on the description alone.

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 semantics beyond the schema and actually complicates parameter understanding by implying 'host' is an output while the schema lists it as an input. The roles of 'json' and 'zone' are unexplained by the description, and their presence suggests the tool may have additional behaviors beyond URL normalization.

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 identifies a clear verb and resource: normalize a URL and return origin, host, and path. However, the input schema includes 'host', 'json', and 'zone' parameters that seem unrelated to URL normalization, creating ambiguity about the tool's true purpose and whether all parameters are used. It lacks differentiation from sibling tools.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to use it, or what alternatives might be appropriate. No context is given for how the tool should be selected among siblings or what scenarios it is designed for.

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