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

The description adds a useful behavioral detail: query and fragment are dropped. However, no annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does not mention failure behavior for invalid URLs, whether extra inputs are ignored, or the exact shape of the returned object.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The main outcome is front-loaded and the key transformation is stated in a second sentence. Every word earns its place.

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?

Despite a seemingly simple statement, the tool has an unexpectedly large and confusing schema, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not resolve which parameter is required, what the return structure looks like, or how it fits with the many URL-related sibling tools, so the agent is left with significant 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?

The schema has eight parameters, and while each has a description, the tool description does not clarify that `url` is the primary input. The output terms 'host' and 'path' collide with parameter names `host` and `path`, which could confuse an agent about whether those are inputs or outputs.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and identifies the resource ('URL') plus the exact output fields ('origin, host, and path'). It also states a key transformation ('Query and fragment are dropped'), which helps separate it from URL-checking siblings like browser-url-ok, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 normalize-url versus sibling tools such as domain-shape, figma-url-shape, or browser-url-ok. It only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer when it is the right choice.

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