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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure, but it only states 'Path discarded.' It does not say whether the tool is read-only, whether it makes a network request, what it returns, or how it treats the rest of the URL. The single behavioral claim (discarding the path) is too minimal to inform a caller.

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 two-sentence description is concise with no wasted words, and the core object is front-loaded. However, the second sentence is a fragment and under-specifies a tool with nine parameters and no annotations, making it more under-specified than elegantly concise.

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 is far too thin for a tool with 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. It fails to explain what input to pass, what operation is performed, what the output looks like, or whether any side effects exist. An agent cannot confidently invoke this tool correctly based on the available information.

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 per the baseline, a 3 is appropriate even without additional parameter explanation. The description does not add parameter-level detail, and the schema's 'url' description ('HTTPS URL to normalize or cite') does not align with the tool's stated Figma-focus, leaving some ambiguity about the primary input.

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 names a specific resource ('Figma file URL') and a verb ('Parse'), which points at the tool's domain. However, 'parse' is vague about the outcome (validation? extraction? normalization?), and 'Path discarded' does not clarify what result the agent should expect. Without more, it is hard to distinguish from normalize-url or a generic URL checker.

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 instead of the many shape/URL siblings such as domain-shape, github-repo-shape, or normalize-url. The only implicit hint is that it applies to Figma URLs, but no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternative recommendations are provided.

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