Legacy: normalize-url → url.normalize

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the legacy-alias behavior and the GET endpoint, which is useful context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't describe what normalization does or any edge cases, but with annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentences with zero waste. The legacy status and preferred alternative are front-loaded, and the endpoint is included as a useful pointer. Every word 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?

For a simple one-parameter legacy alias with full annotation coverage, the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent this is a legacy alias, names the preferred tool, and gives the endpoint. The only minor gap is not explaining what normalization does, but the parameter name and schema description make that reasonably clear.

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% – the single parameter 'q' is documented as 'URL to normalize.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 this is a legacy alias for url.normalize and points to the preferred tool. It identifies the resource (URL normalization) and the action (normalize), though it doesn't describe what normalization does in detail. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the preferred alternative.

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 explicitly says to prefer url.normalize, which is a clear usage directive. It doesn't explain when to use this legacy alias vs the preferred tool, but the instruction to prefer the sibling is sufficient guidance for an agent deciding between them.

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