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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose one notable behavior: 'Path discarded,' which tells the agent that the path input is ignored after the shape check. However, it does not describe the return value, whether any network access occurs, or whether the tool only validates format, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 extremely short and front-loaded: 'Parse a Figma file URL. Path discarded.' Both sentences carry information, but the brevity crosses into under-specification. For a tool with 9 optional parameters and no output schema, more structural context would be valuable without making the description bloated.

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?

Given the 9-parameter schema, no required fields, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not tell the agent which parameter to populate, what a successful parse looks like, or what result to expect, leaving too much to guesswork 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 is 3. Each parameter already has a description, including notes about being discarded. The tool description adds little beyond the schema, and it fails to explicitly identify `url` as the primary input for the Figma URL, though the name and the `url` parameter description make this reasonably inferable.

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 clearly indicates what the tool operates on and distinguishes it from URL-shape tools for other domains like GitHub or Jira. However, it does not elaborate on whether 'parse' means validation, extraction, or normalization, so it stops short of full clarity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of a sibling like normalize-url, browser-url-ok, or domain-shape. The description does not mention any alternatives, prerequisites, or disambiguation conditions, leaving the agent to infer usage purely from the name and context.

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