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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose all behavioral details. It mentions dropping query and fragment, which is useful, but it doesn't explain how the other 8 parameters are handled. The schema descriptions say they are 'discarded' after some check, but the tool description doesn't reconcile this with its stated URL-only purpose, leaving the agent uncertain about parameter interactions.

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 a single, focused sentence that states the core behavior upfront. Every word adds value, and 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?

Despite being a simple operation conceptually, the tool has 9 optional parameters and no required ones, and there is no output schema. The description only covers the URL behavior and ignores the other parameters entirely. An agent is left unsure about what happens if multiple parameters are provided or whether the other parameters are even relevant. This incompleteness could lead to incorrect invocation.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters with clear text, including notes on which ones are discarded. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level information, so it relies on the schema. Since schema coverage is high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 origin, host, and path for a URL, and drops query and fragment. This is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'domain-shape' or 'browser-url-ok' that might have overlapping functionality.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any context, exclusions, or conditions. The list of sibling tools includes many URL-related tools, and there's no indication of when normalize-url is the preferred choice.

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