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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only reveals that the path is discarded; it does not state whether the URL is validated, normalized, fetched, or transformed, nor what the tool returns or whether any external access is involved.

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 redundant wording. The core action is front-loaded, and the 'Path discarded' note adds useful behavioral information without padding.

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 nine parameters, zero required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too sparse for reliable invocation. It does not explain which parameter carries the Figma URL, why the other parameters exist, or what successful output looks like.

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 even though the description adds no parameter-level meaning. The description does not indicate which of the nine schema properties is the Figma URL or whether the others should be ignored, but the schema itself provides complete parameter documentation.

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 ('Parse') and a specific resource ('a Figma file URL'), and adds a clarifying note that the path is discarded. This makes the tool's domain clear and distinct from siblings like normalize-url or github-repo-shape, though it stops short of explaining what 'shape' means or what the parse result is.

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?

Usage is implied: use this tool when a Figma file URL needs to be parsed. However, there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no context about whether this should be preferred over browser-url-ok, normalize-url, or other URL-related siblings.

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