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

The description adds a useful behavioral detail by stating that query strings and fragments are dropped. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it says nothing about the behavior for the host, json, or zone parameters, the return format, or edge cases.

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 compact and front-loaded, with two sentences that deliver the primary output and key transformation without filler. The brevity comes at the cost of ignoring the additional schema parameters, so the structure is efficient but not fully effective for the actual input surface.

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 tool exposes four optional parameters and has no annotations or output schema, yet the description only explains the URL normalization case. It never addresses the host, json, or zone parameters or when each should be used, so an agent cannot confidently invoke the tool across its full input range.

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 every parameter already has a one-line explanation, which meets the baseline. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning and does not help an agent map the unrelated host, json, and zone fields to the tool's stated behavior.

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 output ('origin, host, and path') and a specific behavior ('Query and fragment are dropped'), so the core action is understandable. However, the input schema contains three additional parameters (host, json, zone) that are unrelated to URL normalization and are not acknowledged, making the full scope of the tool unclear.

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 alternatives, when not to use it, or what prerequisites apply. The unrelated 'json' and 'zone' parameters are especially confusing because the description gives no indication of when, if ever, they should be provided.

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