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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only discloses that query and fragment are dropped. It says nothing about handling invalid URLs, network access, or the meaning of the other eight schema parameters. The tool appears to discard or ignore many parameters, but this is not stated. A mutation or read safety profile is also absent.

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 very concise (one sentence) and front-loads the main purpose. However, it is so short that it omits critical context about the wide parameter set, making it under-specified rather than efficiently structured.

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 9 parameters and no output schema, yet the description explains only the 'url' behavior. It does not mention what the tool returns besides origin/host/path, how other parameters affect output, or whether they are ignored. This is insufficient for an agent to call it correctly in all cases.

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter has its own description, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It does not explain how parameters like 'ref', 'city', or 'json' relate to the URL normalization purpose, but the schema descriptions at least label them.

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) on a specific resource (URL), and explicitly notes query/fragment are dropped. It is clear about the core function, but does not distinguish this tool from many URL-related siblings like browser-url-ok or figma-url-shape, so it misses the top score.

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 that also deal with URLs or shapes. There is no mention of alternatives, exclusions, or contextual triggers, leaving the agent to infer.

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