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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Path discarded,' which is ambiguous: it could mean the URL path is omitted from the result or that the path parameter is ignored. It does not disclose whether the tool fetches anything, whether it is purely local, or what it returns.

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 no filler, front-loaded with the purpose. But the brevity is not fully appropriate given the tool has many parameters, an absent output schema, and no annotations; the second sentence is too ambiguous to be as valuable as it should be.

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 leaves critical context unaddressed: what the parsed result looks like, which parameter should carry the Figma URL, and how the seemingly unrelated parameters (city, feed, json) should be treated. Without annotations or an output schema, this is insufficient for reliable invocation.

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 applies and the description adds little parameter-level meaning. The per-parameter schema notes like 'discarded after the shape check' are more informative than the tool description itself.

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 action and resource: parse a Figma file URL. This is clear and distinguishes the tool from generic URL handling, though it does not mention the shape-check behavior or what the parse result contains. The schema's generic 'url' description ('HTTPS URL to normalize or cite') also slightly weakens the mapping to Figma.

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 implies a use case: call this when you have a Figma file URL to parse. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or what alternatives like normalize-url, browser-url-ok, or the other shape-check tools should be used for instead.

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