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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It discloses one trait ('Path discarded') but leaves unclear what the tool returns, whether it validates, normalizes, extracts fields, or makes external calls. This is minimal disclosure for a tool with no annotation safety net.

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 appropriately short and front-loaded with the main verb and resource. It earns its words, though the second phrase 'Path discarded' is terse to the point of ambiguity.

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 a 9-parameter schema, no output schema, and no annotations, this two-phrase description is not enough for an agent to confidently invoke the tool. It does not say which parameter to pass, what result to expect, or how to handle the unrelated parameter names.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema itself documents all nine parameters. The description adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond repeating the 'path discarded' idea, and it does not clarify why the schema includes many unrelated parameters (city, feed, json, zone, query).

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 ('Parse') and a specific resource ('a Figma file URL'), so the core purpose is clear. However, 'Path discarded' is ambiguous and the description does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling URL-related tools like normalize-url or browser-url-ok.

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 implies usage: call this tool when you need to parse a Figma file URL. It gives no explicit alternatives, exclusions, or guidance on when a sibling tool would be more appropriate, so it only meets the 'implied usage' level.

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