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

The description adds one useful behavioral detail—that query and fragment are dropped—but omits many important behaviors: how invalid URLs are handled, whether HTTPS is enforced, what happens when the host, json, or zone parameters are supplied, and what the output structure looks like. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and falls short.

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 two short sentences and gets to the point immediately. There is no filler or redundant wording, and the key scoping detail (dropping query/fragment) is front-loaded.

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 having four parameters and no output schema, the description only covers the URL-normalization case and is silent on the json and zone parameters, error behavior, and return format. An agent would not know whether supplying json or zone is valid, ignored, or triggers alternate behavior, which makes the description insufficient for correct invocation.

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 schema already documents all four parameters; the tool description adds no additional parameter-level semantics. The description mentions url implicitly but does not explain how host, json, or zone interact with the normalization behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 the action (Return) and the specific pieces of a URL (origin, host, path), which is more specific than just saying 'normalize a URL' and signals that query and fragment are removed. However, the schema includes unrelated parameters (json, zone) that the description does not address, which introduces ambiguity about the tool's actual 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 description provides a clear when-to-use ('when you need origin, host, and path of a URL') but no explicit exclusions or comparisons with alternatives. It does not say when not to use it or mention other sibling tools. The presence of json/zone parameters is unexplained, so an agent cannot confidently decide when those should be used.

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