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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. 'Return' implies a read-only operation and dropping query/fragment describes normalization behavior, but it does not address errors, network access, or whether any input is ignored.

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 short sentences deliver the core purpose and a key behavioral rule without filler. Every word contributes to understanding the 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?

No output schema is provided, yet the description does not specify the return format (e.g., separate fields or a string) or behavior for invalid/missing input. The unusual optional parameters are left unexplained, so an agent cannot confidently call the tool.

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 schema exposes nine optional parameters, most of which are unrelated to URL normalization (ref, city, feed, json, zone, query). The description does not clarify which parameters are relevant or how they interact; for example, 'query' is described as 'Search text', not as a URL query to be dropped.

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 states a specific action ('Return origin, host, and path') and a clear behavioral rule ('Query and fragment are dropped'), making the core purpose unambiguous. It lacks a precise mention of the input parameter or output shape, but the URL focus is clear enough.

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 choose this tool over sibling tools such as browser-url-ok, web-fetch, or fetch-status. There is no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or use cases, leaving selection entirely to inference.

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