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

The description voluntarily discloses a meaningful behavior—dropping query strings and fragments—and states the return fields, which matters because no annotations are provided. For a simple read-only normalization tool, this is substantial transparency, though it does not cover invalid-URL behavior or edge cases.

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 sentences deliver the core output, the input kind, and the relevant side effect with no filler. The information is front-loaded and every clause 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?

For a tool with eight parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a crowded sibling list, this description is incomplete. An agent is left uncertain about selecting the right parameter, handling invalid URLs, and interpreting the exact shape of the returned origin, host, and path.

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, the tool description adds no guidance about which parameter is authoritative and leaves ambiguous parameters like `feed` and `url` (both URLs). It also never clarifies that parameters such as `city`, `json`, and `ref` are ignored by this tool, so an agent cannot confidently choose inputs.

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 names the exact operation: returning origin, host, and path for a URL, and it adds the key behavior that query and fragment are dropped. This is more specific than the tool name, but it does not differentiate from URL-related siblings such as 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 pick normalize-url over alternatives or when not to use it. With many sibling tools that involve URLs, the absence of exclusions or recommended conditions leaves the selection to guesswork.

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