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 states that query and fragment are dropped, which is a useful trait. However, it does not explain what happens to the other eight parameters—whether they are ignored, used for side effects, or produce different outputs. This gap is significant given the schema lists many 'discarded' or 'hint' parameters.

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 with zero wasted words. It directly states the action and the key behavioral detail (dropping query/fragment). This is exemplary conciseness.

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 has nine optional parameters with no required ones and no output schema. The description covers only the URL-normalization aspect, leaving the purpose and behavior of the other eight parameters unexplained. An agent could easily misuse the tool or be confused about why those parameters exist. The description is insufficient for a tool with this parameter complexity.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds a little meaning for the 'url' parameter by clarifying that normalization means extracting origin, host, and path. It does not add anything for the other parameters, but they are well-described in the schema. Thus the description provides marginal additional value.

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 tool returns origin, host, and path for a URL and drops query and fragment. This is a specific, well-defined action that distinguishes it from URL validation siblings like browser-url-ok or fetch-status. However, it does not acknowledge the nine input parameters, several of which are unrelated to URL normalization, creating potential ambiguity about the tool's full scope.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (e.g., domain-shape, figma-url-shape, jira-key-shape). There is no mention of alternatives, exclusions, or typical use cases beyond the basic action, leaving the agent to infer when this is the right choice.

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