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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that query and fragment are dropped, which is useful, but it does not mention anything about the other parameters (host, json, zone) or any error behavior. The description also creates a mismatch: it claims the tool only normalizes URLs while the schema suggests broader functionality, leading to potential confusion.

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 very concise, consisting of two sentences with no extraneous words. It front-loads the primary action and includes a specific behavioral detail. While it is under-specified, that is a completeness issue rather than a conciseness issue.

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 4 parameters and no output schema, so the description must explain how these parameters interact. It only addresses URL normalization and entirely ignores the other three parameters, leaving the agent without guidance on how to use them. No information about the return format or edge cases is provided, making the description inadequate for the tool's complexity.

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?

Although the schema has descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage), the tool description adds no information about how they relate to the stated function. It never mentions host, json, or zone, so an agent cannot infer their purpose or whether they are required. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of behavioral context and instead creates ambiguity.

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 verb (Return) and resource (origin, host, path for a URL), and explicitly mentions that query and fragment are dropped. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like validate-json or timezone. However, it only describes URL normalization and completely ignores the other three parameters in the schema, so the overall purpose is not fully clarified.

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 implies the tool is for URL normalization, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like citation or inspect-robots. There is no mention of when not to use it or any exclusions. Given the sibling list, more explicit guidance would be beneficial.

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