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

Without annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It flatly states that query and fragment are dropped, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it says nothing about invalid URLs, scheme requirements, or whether any other inputs affect behavior, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 short, front-loaded sentences clearly state the core behavior and an important edge-case rule (dropping query and fragment). No filler or redundant wording.

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 description is adequate for a simple transform tool: it gives the return fields and states the main behavior. It lacks an explicit statement that `url` is the only meaningful input, and with no output schema or annotations, an agent gets no information about return format or error handling.

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 describes all seven parameters, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond pointing at a URL. With high schema_description_coverage, the baseline of 3 applies; the description does not clarify which parameter is primary or why 'path' and 'host' also appear as inputs/outputs.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Return origin, host, and path for a URL') and names the exact outputs. It is clear and aligned with the tool name, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling URL/shape tools such as browser-url-ok or domain-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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use normalize-url versus alternatives and no exclusions or prerequisites. The only implied use case is from the description itself, with no mention of sibling tools or context.

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