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

With no annotations, the description should disclose side effects or non-effects, but it only states the output transformation. It does not explicitly state that no network request is made, no data is modified, or what errors may occur.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the main behavior and output. It is appropriately brief.

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 description lacks essential context for a tool with such a bloated and ambiguous schema: it does not explain how the parameters relate to the operation, what the output format is, or how errors are handled. The lack of an output schema makes this incompleteness more significant.

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?

The input schema includes nine optional parameters with descriptions that are largely irrelevant to URL normalization (e.g., 'Git ref name', 'City name', 'IANA timezone name'). The conflicting descriptions do not clarify which parameters are actually used and undermine the tool's reliability.

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?

Description clearly states the tool's function: return origin, host, and path for a URL and drop query/fragment. It names the resource and the transformation, making the core purpose obvious.

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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as browser-url-ok or web-fetch. There is no mention of suitable use cases or when not to use it.

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