normalize-url

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the transformations performed (lowercasing, stripping fragment, sorting query), which is helpful. However, it does not mention error handling, idempotency, or explicitly state that the operation is read-only (though 'Analytics-only' hints at a usage restriction, not side effects). A bit more context on return value would be useful.

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, efficient sentence that leads with the verb and immediately states the core behavior and the 'Analytics-only' qualifier. There is no unnecessary padding; every word adds 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?

For a simple single-parameter utility with no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It defines the transformation and hints at its use case. However, it does not explicitly state that the output is the canonicalized URL string, which the absence of an output schema leaves open. Still, this is a minor gap given the simplicity of the function.

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?

The schema description for parameter 'q' merely states 'URL to normalize/canonicalize', which is generic. The tool description adds concrete meaning by explaining what normalization entails (lowercasing, fragment stripping, query sorting). This adds value beyond the schema, so it warrants a 4 despite 100% coverage.

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 canonicalizes a URL and specifies the exact transformations: scheme/host lowercased, fragment stripped, query sorted. This is a specific verb and resource that distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which are unrelated (DNS, whois, hashing, encoding, etc.).

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 phrase 'Analytics-only' implies a usage context, but no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives is provided. Since the tool is a generic URL normalizer, usage is implied for any situation requiring a canonical URL, but there is no mention of exclusions or alternatives.

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