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

The description discloses that query and fragment are dropped, which is useful for the url parameter. But it does not explain the behavior of the other 8 parameters, nor describe the output format. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and falls short for a tool with this many inputs.

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 sentence, which is concise and front-loads the primary purpose. However, given the tool has 9 parameters and no annotations, this brevity results in under-specification rather than efficient clarity.

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?

For a tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the role of non-URL parameters, the return value, or edge cases. The one-sentence description is insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly across all its inputs.

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?

While schema coverage is 100%, the parameter descriptions are vague or contradictory. For instance, 'city' is for a weather hint and 'ref' is a Git ref name, both seemingly unrelated to URL normalization. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema and does not clarify how these parameters interact with the main function.

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 primary purpose: 'Return origin, host, and path for a URL.' However, the schema lists 9 unrelated parameters (e.g., city, ref, zone) with no explanation of how they relate to URL normalization, so the tool's full scope is ambiguous. It also does not differentiate from siblings like browser-url-ok or domain-shape.

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. It does not state conditions for selection, mention prerequisites, or exclude scenarios. The description only describes the core action without contextualizing it among the many sibling tools.

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