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

The description discloses that query and fragment are dropped and that origin, host, and path are returned. However, no annotations are provided, and there is no mention of error behavior, invalid URL handling, side effects, or how the many apparently unrelated schema parameters affect behavior.

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 very brief and front-loaded, with no filler or redundant wording. Both sentences earn their place by stating the output and the dropped components.

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 is far too incomplete for an agent to call the tool correctly. It does not specify which of the 9 optional parameters should be provided, whether URL is required, what the return format is, or how errors are reported. The mismatch between the description and the schema leaves critical context missing.

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 the schema has 100% description coverage, the parameter descriptions appear copy-pasted from other tools and are inconsistent with the tool's purpose. For example, 'query' is described as 'Search text; discarded after the length check' while the main description says query is dropped, and parameters like city, feed, json, and zone have no clear connection to URL normalization.

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 states a clear operation and output: return origin, host, and path for a URL and drop query/fragment. However, the input schema contains 9 optional parameters that are mostly unrelated to URL normalization (e.g., city, feed, json, zone, ref), and no required parameters, making the actual purpose confusing and internally inconsistent.

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 about when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as fetch-status, web-fetch, figma-url-shape, or github-repo-shape. The description only implies URL normalization but does not state use cases, prerequisites, or alternatives.

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