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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals one behavior (path is discarded) but does not state whether the tool validates the URL, makes network calls, returns a file key, or has any side effects. This is a significant gap for a parsing tool.

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 concise: two short sentences with no filler. Both sentences contribute information ('parse' and 'path discarded'). It is succinct though perhaps too spare given the complexity of the schema.

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?

Despite having 9 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description does not explain the overall multi-parameter behavior or what the tool returns after parsing. An agent cannot tell whether the URL is required, why other parameters are accepted, or what constitutes a successful result. This is inadequate for a tool with this schema complexity.

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 schema already documents all nine parameters. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline 3 scenario. It does not clarify why many unrelated parameters (city, feed, json, etc.) are present or how they relate to the URL parsing.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Parse a Figma file URL.' It adds a specific behavioral detail ('Path discarded') that sharpens the scope. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like normalize-url or github-repo-shape, so it lacks overt sibling differentiation.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as normalize-url or browser-url-ok. There is no mention of conditions, exclusions, or selection criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.

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