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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it delivers nothing: no statement of what transformations are applied, whether the input URL is validated, whether missing components are defaulted, or what the output looks like. Pure name repetition.

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?

It is short, but brevity here is under-specification rather than economy – there is no content to be concise about. The repeated name is not front-loaded information.

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?

A transformation tool with three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema needs the description to explain the canonicalization rules and the role of 'input' and 'sortQuery'; none of that is present, leaving the agent unable to call it correctly.

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 per the baseline rule this scores 3 even though the description adds nothing. In practice the schema text is hollow ('Url to process', 'SortQuery to process'), so no real semantics are conveyed anywhere, but the structural coverage satisfies the baseline.

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 is the literal string 'URL Canonical: URL Canonical', a tautology restating the tool name with no verb or explanation of what canonicalization means here (lowercasing host, stripping tracking params, sorting query, etc.). An agent cannot distinguish this from sibling URL tools such as x402-url-parse or x402-url-inspect.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, no preconditions. The agent is given no way to know when canonicalizing a URL is the right operation versus normalizing, parsing, or validating one.

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