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 important transformation ('Query and fragment are dropped') beyond the bare verb. It does not, however, describe error behavior, return shape, or what happens with the extra schema parameters (host, json, zone).

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, and the core return behavior is front-loaded. Every phrase 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 tool has four parameters and no output schema or annotations, yet the description only addresses the URL behavior; it leaves the relevance of host, json, and zone unexplained. An agent cannot determine what output format to expect or whether calling this tool with anything beyond url is valid.

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 schema already documents each parameter. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning and does not clarify whether host, json, and zone are actually used by normalize-url or ignored.

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.' It also adds a concrete scoping detail ('Query and fragment are dropped') that makes the behavior precise. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like url-host, so it stops short 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 implies the tool is for normalizing/citing HTTPS URLs and dropping query/fragment, which gives a clear use case. However, it never states when to prefer normalize-url over sibling tools such as url-host or citation, and it gives no exclusion conditions.

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