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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavior (query and fragment are dropped), but it remains silent on broader behaviors: whether network access occurs, any differences across the schema's nine heterogeneous parameters, and error cases. It is honest but thin given the lack of annotation support.

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 crisp and front-loaded: one sentence says exactly what is returned, followed by a second sentence disclosing the destructive behavior. Every word earns its place. It is slightly lean given the 9-parameter schema, but as a prose form it is appropriately economical.

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?

Given nine optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description leaves important gaps: which parameter is the actual input, what happens when the other eight are supplied, whether it returns a string or a structure, and how it handles non-HTTPS or malformed URLs. An agent could reasonably invoke it with 'url', but edge-case and interplay behavior are materially under-specified.

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 sits at 3. The description itself adds little parameter-level meaning; the clause about dropping query/fragment is about URL components, not the 'query' parameter. It never clarifies that only 'url' is meaningful and the other eight parameters appear to be decorative shape checks, leaving the parameter relationships ambiguous.

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 ('Return') and states concrete output fields (origin, host, path), with the explicit exclusion of query and fragment. It is clear enough to read as a URL-normalization tool, although it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as browser-url-ok, playwright-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?

Usage is implied: use this when you need URL components with query and fragment stripped. However, the description never states when not to use it versus the many URL-related siblings, and gives no scenario-based guidance about choosing this tool over fetch-status, web-fetch, or the url-ok tools.

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