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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses only one behavioral detail: 'Path discarded.' It does not say whether the tool validates, normalizes, fetches, returns parsed components, or has any side effects, leaving an agent with limited understanding of the operation.

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 and front-loaded: the action is stated first and the path caveat follows. No words are wasted, though the brevity approaches under-specification for a tool with nine parameters.

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 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a large sibling list, a one-sentence description is not sufficient. It omits return behavior, validation semantics, network safety, and how to choose this tool over normalize-url or other shape checkers.

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 each parameter already has a description; the baseline is therefore 3. The tool description adds a small amount by noting that the path is discarded, but it does not clarify which of the nine parameters is the primary input for this Figma URL tool.

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 clearly names a specific action ('Parse') and resource ('Figma file URL'), so an agent can tell this tool is about Figma URLs. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like normalize-url or browser-url-ok, but the Figma-specific resource provides enough clarity for a 4.

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 about when to use this tool versus the many sibling shape/URL tools. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives are mentioned; the usage context is only implied by the word 'Figma'.

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