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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose that query and fragment are dropped. However, it does not describe error behavior on malformed URLs, handling of credentials/ports/case, or whether the operation has any side effects, all of which are relevant for an agent invoking the tool.

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 main output is stated first and the key transformation (dropping query/fragment) is front-loaded in the second sentence.

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?

Despite no annotations and no output schema, the description ignores the nine-parameter schema, many of which (ref, city, feed, json, path, zone, query) appear unrelated to URL normalization. An agent cannot tell which parameters are relevant or how they interact with the core behavior, so the definition is incomplete.

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 parameter descriptions already explain each field. The tool description adds only the behavior that query and fragment are dropped, which complements but does not substantially extend the schema for the nine parameters.

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 specific behavior: it returns origin, host, and path for a URL, and drops query and fragment. This is clear and informative, but it does not explicitly distinguish normalize-url from sibling URL-related tools such as browser-url-ok or figma-url-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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling URL/shape tools, nor any mention of exclusions or prerequisites. The description only states the function, leaving the agent to infer the intended use case.

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