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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden but only says query and fragment are dropped and origin/host/path are returned. It does not disclose side effects, error handling, or that most schema parameters appear to be ignored.

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 two short sentences, front-loads the main purpose, and contains no fluff or redundant boilerplate.

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 schema has nine optional parameters and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete; it does not explain the presence or purpose of the extra parameters, the exact return shape, or error behavior.

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 every parameter has a schema description, most are irrelevant to a URL normalizer (e.g., city, ref, json, zone, query) and their descriptions like 'discarded after the shape check' are confusing. The only clearly relevant parameter is url, and its description adds 'or cite' which is unexplained.

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 resource ('URL'), and clearly states the output components (origin, host, path) and that query/fragment are dropped. This distinguishes it from sibling URL tools like browser-url-ok or web-fetch.

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 choose this tool over alternatives such as browser-url-ok, web-fetch, or figma-url-shape. The description only states behavior, not selection criteria or exclusion cases.

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