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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does disclose the main transformation—query and fragment are dropped—but does not state whether the operation is purely local, what happens for invalid or non-HTTPS URLs, or whether the json and zone inputs have any side effects. The disclosure is helpful but incomplete.

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 short sentences with no filler; the key transformation is front-loaded and the return values are named. Every sentence 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?

The schema has four optional parameters, no required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description needs to resolve a lot of ambiguity. It does not explain how json and zone fit into a normalize-url tool, whether url is effectively required, or what the output structure looks like beyond three named components. A URL-only description is materially incomplete for this schema.

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 of 3 applies; the schema already documents all four parameters. The prose adds little beyond listing 'origin, host, and path' as return concepts and does not clarify how json or zone relate to URL normalization, but the schema itself compensates for param-level meaning.

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 clear verb and object ('Return origin, host, and path for a URL') and explicitly defines the transformation (query and fragment are dropped), so the core function is identifiable. However, it does not reconcile this URL-focused purpose with the unrelated json and zone parameters in the schema, leaving some ambiguity about the tool's full scope.

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 phrase 'Query and fragment are dropped' implicitly tells an agent this tool is for normalized URL components without query/fragment, and the url parameter description adds 'normalize or cite.' There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tools are mentioned, so usage guidance is mostly implied rather than stated.

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