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 one meaningful behavior—query and fragment are dropped—and the 'Return...' phrasing implies a read-only, side-effect-free operation. However, it does not mention behavior on invalid URLs, error handling, or any network/validation side effects.

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 short sentences with no filler. The primary behavior is front-loaded, and the note about dropped components is directly relevant, so 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 core output—origin, host, and path—is stated clearly, and the schema fills in parameter-level details. However, the description does not clarify which input parameter to use among several seemingly unrelated fields, nor does it describe output format or edge cases. For a tool without an output schema or annotations, this leaves some ambiguity.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for all eight parameters, so schema coverage is high. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond implying that a URL is normalized, leaving the agent to map that to the `url` parameter without additional clarification.

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 operation: return origin, host, and path for a URL, and drop query and fragment. This clearly communicates the tool's core function, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling URL-shape tools such as domain-shape or figma-url-shape.

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 provided about when to choose normalize-url over alternatives, nor are prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The description implies a URL-normalization use case but leaves the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate relative to siblings.

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