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. But with no annotations, it must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't mention input requirements (absolute vs. relative URLs), error handling for invalid URLs, return format, or that other parameters are ignored. This is a significant gap for a tool with a broad schema.

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 concise sentences, front-loading the purpose and then a key behavioral note. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy.

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?

Given 9 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain that only 'url' is needed, what to expect in the return value (format, structure), or how the tool handles edge cases. The broad schema without clarification makes this definition insufficient 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?

The schema lists 9 parameters with individual descriptions, but the tool description only implicitly references 'url'. It doesn't clarify that other parameters like 'ref', 'city', 'feed', etc. are discarded or irrelevant to normalization. An agent would be confused about which parameter to use and why the schema has so many unrelated fields. The description adds no guidance beyond the schema's existing text.

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's function: return origin, host, and path for a URL, and it mentions dropping query and fragment. This gives a specific verb and resource, and it is distinct from siblings like browser-url-ok or domain-shape. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from alternatives, and the presence of many unrelated parameters in the schema muddies the focus.

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 other URL-related siblings such as browser-url-ok, domain-shape, or web-fetch. It doesn't mention scenarios or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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