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

With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It correctly states that query and fragment are dropped, but it completely ignores the other three parameters (host, json, zone) that appear in the schema. This creates a gap where an agent cannot understand how those parameters affect behavior or why they exist. The description is not misleading, but it is incomplete for a tool with four parameters.

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 a single, tightly worded sentence that conveys the essential behavior. It is front-loaded with the primary action and outcome, with no filler or redundant information. It earns a top score for efficiency.

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 has four parameters but the description only addresses one. There is no explanation of how the parameters interact, what the expected input format is beyond 'HTTPS URL', or what happens if a URL is invalid. With no output schema, the description should provide more context about return values and edge cases, but it is minimal. This leaves an agent under-informed for a multi-parameter tool.

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 each parameter has a description. The tool description adds value for the 'url' parameter by explaining the output format, but it does nothing for 'host', 'json', or 'zone'. Since the baseline for 100% coverage is 3, and the description adds only marginal context for one parameter, this score is appropriate.

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 operation: return origin, host, and path from a URL, and explicitly notes that query and fragment are dropped. This clearly identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from siblings like domain-shape or inspect-robots, though it doesn't name alternatives. The presence of unrelated parameters in the schema slightly muddies the clarity, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent would have to infer that this is for extracting URL components, but nothing explicitly states when to choose normalize-url over other tools like domain-shape or status-catalog.

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