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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that query and fragment are dropped, which is valuable. However, it does not address the many unrelated parameters in the schema (city, feed, json, etc.) or state that they are ignored, leaving ambiguity about what happens when those are supplied.

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 sentences with no filler. The main output is front-loaded and the key behavioral detail (query and fragment dropped) is stated immediately. Every word earns its place.

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 sufficient for the core URL-normalization use case, but the schema lists seven parameters with no indication of which are necessary or how they interact. The description does not mention that most parameters are discarded, leaving the overall input contract unclear despite schema-level annotations.

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 description coverage is high—all seven parameters have individual descriptions. The tool description adds little beyond the core URL behavior and doesn't clarify which parameters are relevant or required. With schema already documenting each parameter, 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 specific action ('Return origin, host, and path for a URL') and a key behavior (query and fragment dropped). It is obviously about URL normalization, not a vague restatement of the name. However, it does not differentiate from sibling URL-focused tools like domain-shape or figma-url-shape, so it doesn't earn a 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 implies the tool should be used when origin, host, and path are needed from a URL, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over sibling tools or when not to use it. There are no alternatives mentioned, so the context is only implied.

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