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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention that query and fragment are dropped, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose that several input parameters (ref, city, feed, etc.) are effectively ignored or discarded, nor does it mention failure modes or error handling. The description is minimal and leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and includes the key behavioral note about dropping query and fragment. This is an ideal length for a simple tool.

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 tool has 9 parameters (many seemingly unrelated to URL normalization) and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain which parameters are relevant, what the return format looks like beyond the three components, or any error conditions. An agent would need to rely heavily on the schema descriptions, which are present but not tied to the tool's main function.

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 description coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a description. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides. While it implies the 'url' parameter is the focus, it never names it or explains how the other parameters relate. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but does not go beyond it.

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 verb 'Return' and the resource 'origin, host, and path for a URL', which defines the tool's purpose. It is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools like browser-url-ok or figma-url-shape, so it loses a point for lack of sibling distinction.

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. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent has no explicit signal about when normalize-url is the right choice among the many URL-related siblings.

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