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 discloses that query and fragment are dropped and that origin, host, and path are returned, but it does not disclose how the other eight schema parameters are handled (e.g., discarded, ignored, or used as alternatives). This is a significant transparency gap for a tool with a large, unexplained parameter set.

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, front-loaded sentence that clearly states the primary behavior. It is concise and easy to read. However, given the complexity of the schema (nine parameters), this brevity borders on under-specification, as the description omits all context about the extra parameters.

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?

For a tool with nine optional parameters and no output schema, the description is far from complete. It does not explain the role of the majority of parameters, nor does it state whether they are ignored, mutually exclusive, or secondary inputs. An agent cannot confidently know what to pass or expect, especially since the description only covers URL normalization while the schema suggests broader functionality.

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 has 100% description coverage, so each parameter has a basic description. However, the tool description adds no semantic value beyond that: it does not explain how 'ref', 'city', 'feed', 'json', 'path', 'zone', or 'query' relate to URL normalization, nor does it clarify whether 'host' is an alternative to 'url'. The description fails to bridge the gap between the stated purpose and the actual schema.

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 action (return origin, host, path) and the resource (a URL), and distinguishes from siblings like browser-url-ok or figma-url-shape by focusing on normalization. However, the input schema contains nine parameters, many unrelated to URL normalization (e.g., ref, city, json, zone), which blurs the tool's actual scope and creates ambiguity about what it really does.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no context about when the extra parameters apply. An agent is left to infer that only 'url' matters, but the schema suggests other inputs might be used, so there is no clear selection logic.

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