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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one meaningful behavioral trait: query and fragment are dropped. However, it remains silent on side effects, error behavior, and what happens with the other three schema parameters, which is a notable gap given the absence of annotations.

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, each earning its place: the first states the return values, the second states the filtering behavior. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or repetition.

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 description is incomplete for the schema as a whole. It only addresses URL normalization, while the schema includes three unrelated parameters (host, json, zone) whose role in this tool is unexplained. Without an output schema or annotations, an agent cannot fully understand how these parameters fit or what the complete call behavior is.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real semantics to the 'url' parameter by explaining what is returned and what is discarded. But it adds nothing about 'host', 'json', or 'zone', leaving those parameters disconnected from the described behavior.

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 specific behavior: it returns origin, host, and path for a URL and explicitly drops query and fragment. This gives an agent an unambiguous understanding of what the tool produces. No sibling tools are provided to differentiate from, so no further distinction is needed.

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 usage context is implied: use this when you need a normalized URL with query and fragment removed. However, there are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statements, and no alternative tools are mentioned, so the guidance is only implicit rather than directive.

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