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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait: query and fragment are dropped, which is useful given no annotations. However, it does not explain the output format, invalid URL handling, or how the many unrelated-looking schema parameters (ref, city, feed, json, path, zone, query) relate to the normalization behavior.

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 appropriately sized: two short sentences with no filler. The primary behavior is front-loaded, and the query/fragment caveat is stated clearly 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?

With 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a two-sentence description is insufficient. An agent cannot determine which parameter is primary, what the return value looks like in practice, or why several schema parameters appear unrelated to URL normalization.

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 does not add meaningful parameter semantics beyond the schema, and it fails to clarify the apparent mismatch between the URL-focused description and the extra parameters in the schema.

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 verb and resource: 'Return origin, host, and path for a URL.' It also adds distinguishing behavior by noting that query and fragment are dropped, which helps separate it from URL-checking siblings like browser-url-ok and domain-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?

The description implies when to use the tool: when normalized URL components are needed without query or fragment. However, it gives no explicit guidance about alternatives or when not to use this tool, especially given the large sibling list with several URL-related tools.

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