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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions that query and fragment are dropped, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it does not address the nine parameters, some of which (e.g., city, zone, json) are unrelated to URL normalization, nor does it mention whether any network access or side effects occur. The description is minimal and leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 a single, tightly packed sentence that states the core action and the key output. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff. It earns a top score for conciseness.

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 nine parameters, but the description only addresses URL normalization. It does not explain the relevance or discard behavior of the other parameters, even though the schema indicates they are discarded. Without an output schema, the description is the only source for return values, and it does mention them. However, the mismatch between the description and the broad parameter set leaves the agent uncertain about how to use the tool correctly, especially given the unrelated parameters like city and zone.

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 each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. According to the baseline for high coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate; the description doesn't compensate for any gaps because none exist in the schema.

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 clearly states the tool returns origin, host, and path for a URL and drops query and fragment. This is a specific verb and resource, making the purpose unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like browser-url-ok or figma-url-shape, but the function is distinct enough.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools. The agent receives no hint about when normalize-url is the right choice among the many URL-related tools.

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