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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of explaining side effects, network access, or error behavior. It only states the output shape and dropped components, leaving important behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 concise and front-loaded, stating the action and output clearly in two short sentences. However, the brevity contributes to missing context about the unrelated parameters, but this is more a completeness issue than a conciseness issue.

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?

Given the complex nine-parameter schema, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too incomplete. It does not explain which parameters are used, how invalid URLs are handled, what the output format is, or what side effects might occur.

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?

Although each parameter has a schema description, those descriptions are inconsistent with the tool purpose (e.g., 'city', 'feed', 'zone', 'query') and do not clarify how or whether they relate to URL normalization. The description fails to map the relevant parameters to the 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 the tool returns origin, host, and path for a URL and drops query and fragment. However, the purpose is somewhat undermined by the large set of unrelated optional parameters in the schema, which makes the actual resource scope ambiguous.

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 such as browser-url-ok, fetch-status, or web-fetch. No conditions, prerequisites, or typical use cases are provided.

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