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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that query and fragment are dropped and that the return includes origin, host, and path. However, it does not disclose what happens when other parameters (host, json, zone) are supplied, how invalid URLs are handled, or whether any side effects occur. The description only covers the URL path and omits the behavior for the other accepted inputs, which is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the main action and the key behavior (dropping query/fragment). There is no wasted prose, and it is easy to parse. However, it is so brief that it under-specifies the tool's full behavior, but for conciseness alone it scores well.

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 the tool has four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It explains only the URL normalization behavior, leaving the purpose of the other three parameters entirely unaddressed. There is no mention of return format, error cases, or interaction between parameters. An agent would likely be confused about when and how to use the additional inputs. The description needs to either document the extra parameters' roles or clarify that they are irrelevant for normalization, which is absent.

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?

While the schema covers all parameters with individual descriptions (100% coverage), the tool description adds no meaning beyond that. It does not explain how the 'url' parameter relates to 'host', 'json', or 'zone', nor does it clarify the intended use of these extra parameters. The schema descriptions themselves are terse ('HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', 'Public hostname', etc.) and don't address the semantic mismatch with the tool's stated purpose. The description fails to compensate for the confusing parameter set, so a baseline 3 is not justified.

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 primary action: 'Return origin, host, and path for a URL' with the explicit behavioral note that query and fragment are dropped. This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools like timezone or validate-json, which have different purposes. However, the presence of three unrelated parameters (host, json, zone) in the schema creates ambiguity about whether the tool does more than URL normalization, so it isn't a perfect 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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. The siblings (timezone, validate-json, etc.) are clearly different in purpose, so usage is implied rather than articulated. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer that this tool is for URL normalization only. A clear 'use this when you need to strip query/fragment from a URL' would improve it.

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