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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does disclose that query and fragment are dropped, which is a meaningful behavioral trait. However, it does not mention what happens with invalid URLs, whether HTTPS is enforced, or that the schema's host/json/zone parameters appear unrelated to this tool's 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?

Two sentences with no filler. The main behavior is front-loaded and the key exception (dropping query/fragment) follows immediately. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a tool with four schema parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not specify the return shape (object vs. string), clarify which parameters apply, or address edge cases. The presence of unrelated parameters in the schema makes this incompleteness more harmful.

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%, but the description only adds meaning for the url parameter. The remaining three parameters (host, json, zone) are present in the schema and described for other purposes, creating real ambiguity about whether they can or should be passed to normalize-url. The description does not clarify that only url is relevant.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and names the resource (a URL) along with exactly what is returned (origin, host, path) and what is dropped (query, fragment). This is clear and actionable, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like validate-json or host-to-zone.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are any exclusions or prerequisites stated. The intended context ('need origin/host/path') is only implied by the behavior, not stated.

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