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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses a key behavioral trait: query parameters and fragments are dropped, which is essential for an agent to predict output. It does not mention what happens with invalid URLs, whether the input is validated, or whether the output is returned as a single string or separate fields, but the core behavior is honestly and usefully disclosed. The description itself is not misleading and adds meaningful behavioral context beyond just 'normalize'.

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 two sentences long with zero waste. The primary behavior is front-loaded ('Return origin, host, and path') and the most important behavioral detail ('Query and fragment are dropped') is stated immediately after. Every word earns its place and the structure makes the tool's core function immediately clear.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should clarify what output the agent can expect. It says what parts are returned but not the format (e.g., a string, an object, separate fields). The tool also accepts four parameters including 'host', 'json', and 'zone', which are not explained in the description at all; their presence is confusing given the stated purpose. For a simple tool the core behavior is clear, but the mismatch between the description's focus on URL normalization and the full parameter list leaves an agent with gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter has a description in the schema: url, host, json, and zone. However, the schema descriptions are thin and the tool description explains none of them beyond implying 'url' is the primary input. The description adds no extra meaning about parameter formats, defaults, or how the 'host', 'json', and 'zone' parameters relate to the tool's stated purpose of returning origin/host/path. The description does not help an agent understand why 'json' and 'zone' parameters exist, which is a significant gap given they seem unrelated 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 clearly states a specific action ('Return origin, host, and path for a URL') and the scope of that action ('Query and fragment are dropped'). It tells the agent exactly what the tool computes and what it discards, which fully distinguishes it from generic URL utilities. The verb 'Return' plus the explicit list of components (origin, host, path) makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 implicitly conveys when to use the tool: when you need the origin, host, or path of a URL and want query strings and fragments removed. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use it, but for a simple normalization tool the usage context is clear from the behavior described. The absence of explicit exclusions is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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