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 does reveal that query and fragment are dropped, which is a behavior. However, it fails to explain what happens with the many unrelated parameters in the schema (e.g., city, zone, json, feed), leaving significant ambiguity about their effect or lack thereof. This is a transparency gap for a tool with a broad, loosely-related 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 sentence with no filler, and it front-loads the core behavior (returning origin, host, path) before the caveat about dropping query and fragment. It is maximally concise.

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 tool is conceptually simple for URL normalization, but the schema includes 9 parameters, many of which appear unrelated (city, feed, json, zone, query, etc.). The description does not explain how these interact with the tool's purpose, whether they are ignored, or what they contribute. This leaves the tool under-specified for an agent trying to call it correctly, especially given the lack of an 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 description coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a textual description in the schema. The description itself does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions the 'url' parameter implicitly. Per the baseline rule, when schema coverage is high and description adds nothing, a 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 a specific operation: returning origin, host, and path for a URL, and explicitly notes that query and fragment are dropped. It avoids tautology and is unambiguous about the core action. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'figma-url-shape' or 'browser-url-ok' that may also handle URLs, so it misses the sibling-distinction aspect of 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or typical scenarios. An agent would have no basis to choose this over a sibling URL-related tool.

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