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

The description discloses the primary output behavior and explicitly notes that query and fragment are dropped. However, it does not explain how invalid URLs, non-HTTPS schemes, or empty inputs are handled, and it remains unclear whether the eight additional parameters are ignored or 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 brief and front-loaded, stating the core action in the first sentence and a key transformation in the second. It avoids unnecessary wording, though it could be more informative without becoming verbose.

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 tool has nine parameters, no required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description only explains behavior for the url parameter. It omits expected output format, error conditions, and why many unrelated parameters exist, leaving the agent without enough context to use the tool reliably.

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 every parameter has a schema description, most descriptions are generic placeholder-like texts unrelated to URL normalization, such as city, zone, json, and feed. Only the url parameter is clearly relevant, and the description does not clarify the role or intended usage of the other parameters.

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 that the tool returns the origin, host, and path from a URL and that query and fragment components are dropped. This gives a specific verb, resource, and observable outcome, though the presence of many unrelated parameters introduces some ambiguity about the actual scope.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over the many URL-related sibling tools such as web-fetch, fetch-status, or playwright-url-ok. It does not mention typical use cases, restrictions, or conditions under which an agent should prefer normalize-url.

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