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

The description mentions that query and fragment are dropped, but it does not disclose side effects, permissions, network access, or persistence behavior. With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and only partially explains the tool's 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 concise, using two short sentences with no filler or redundant phrasing. It directly states the operation and the transformation applied.

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 lacks detail about the output format, error behavior, and the role of the many optional parameters. Since there is no output schema, more context about the returned structure would be necessary for reliable use.

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?

Each parameter has a schema description, but the tool description only addresses 'url' and 'query' indirectly. Parameters like 'ref', 'city', 'feed', 'json', 'zone', 'host', and 'path' are not connected to the stated purpose of URL normalization at the tool level.

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 the tool returns the origin, host, and path for a URL and that query and fragment are dropped. This gives a direct sense of the primary purpose, though the presence of many unrelated parameters adds some confusion.

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 use this tool versus alternatives like fetch-status, web-fetch, or browser-url-ok. There is no mention of suitable use cases, edge cases, or when not to use it.

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