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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly discloses that query and fragment are dropped and that origin, host, and path are returned. This is meaningful behavioral context, though it does not describe edge cases or validation behavior.

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 wasted words. The main output is stated first, and the exclusion behavior is front-loaded in the second sentence.

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 description is adequate for a simple read-only normalization tool: it states return values and dropped components. However, it does not clarify that only 'url' is the meaningful input, does not explain what happens with the other input fields, and does not specify behavior on invalid URLs, leaving some gaps given the seven-parameter schema and no output schema.

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?

Schema descriptions cover all seven parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful context about 'origin' and query/fragment removal, but it also introduces ambiguity by naming 'host' and 'path' as outputs while those same names appear as input parameters.

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?

States a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('origin, host, and path for a URL'), and adds the key behavior of dropping query and fragment. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling URL-checking and fetching 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?

The description implies when to use the tool: when a caller needs normalized URL components with query/fragment removed. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions relative to sibling tools, so the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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