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

The description discloses the core transformation behavior: returning origin/host/path and dropping query/fragment. However, it does not mention edge cases, error behavior, or whether the operation is purely local, and no annotations are provided.

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 short, focused, and free of unnecessary detail. The two sentences provide the essential behavior without wordiness.

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 information about the return format, especially since there is no output schema. The presence of numerous irrelevant optional parameters and no required parameters makes the tool incomplete from an agent's perspective.

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 contains many unrelated parameters (ref, city, feed, json, zone) with descriptions that do not fit a URL normalizer. The tool description does not clarify which parameter is intended, and no parameter is required, leaving invocation ambiguous.

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 from a URL and drops query and fragment. This is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling URL-related tools.

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. It does not mention typical use cases, such as normalizing URLs before comparison or validation.

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