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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavior itself. It only mentions 'Path discarded' and omits what the parse result looks like, whether any network or filesystem access occurs, and how invalid URLs are handled.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the 'Path discarded' note adds behavioral information without redundancy.

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?

With nine optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete for reliable invocation. It does not state the expected return value, the required parameter, or how Figma URL shape validity is determined.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not clarify which parameter should hold the Figma URL, and the 'url' parameter is described generically as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite,' though an agent can reasonably infer `url` is the intended input.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Parse a Figma file URL.' This distinguishes it from sibling shape/URL tools, though it does not clarify what the parsed 'shape' is or what the tool returns.

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 resource type ('Figma file URL') implies when this tool should be used, but the description gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over normalize-url, browser-url-ok, or other sibling URL tools. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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