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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose one behavior beyond the schema: URL query and fragment are dropped. However, it does not clarify normalization rules, error behavior on invalid URLs, or how the other eight parameters are treated, leaving significant gaps.

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 lean sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by a key behavior. Every word contributes; there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

Despite the simple purpose, the tool has 9 optional parameters and no output schema. The description does not state that url is the effective input, what happens with invalid URLs, whether non-url parameters are ignored, or the exact shape of the returned origin/host/path. This leaves an agent uncertain about correct scope and side effects.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful meaning for the url parameter by defining its output and the dropped components. It does nothing for the other eight parameters, leaving their relevance ambiguous for a tool named normalize-url.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Return origin, host, and path for a URL. Query and fragment are dropped.' This makes the core purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like browser-url-ok or web-fetch, so it does not fully earn a 5.

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 the many sibling URL-related tools, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The description is purely definitional and leaves the agent to infer selection context.

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