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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does disclose a key behavior: query and fragment are dropped, implying the output is a reduced URL form. However, it does not explain behavior for the json or zone parameters, nor what happens when multiple parameters are supplied together.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, no filler, and the primary behavior is front-loaded. Every word adds information about what the tool does.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and four optional parameters, yet the description only explains URL normalization. It does not clarify why json and zone are parameters, what host means as an input, or how the agent should decide which arguments to provide. This is inadequate for a tool with this much parameter surface area.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds some meaning for the url parameter by explaining that query and fragment are removed, but it creates ambiguity by naming 'host' as an output while 'host' is also an input parameter. It adds no value for the json or zone parameters beyond their terse schema descriptions.

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 specific action ('Return origin, host, and path') and a concrete transformation rule ('Query and fragment are dropped'). It is not a tautology and gives an agent a clear idea of the tool's core output. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like citation or domain-shape, so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives no guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. An agent must infer that the tool is for URL normalization, but nothing indicates when citation, domain-shape, or inspect-robots would be more appropriate.

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