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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only states 'Path discarded.' It does not say whether the tool is read-only, whether it performs network access, what it returns, or how it handles invalid URLs. The discarded-path note is a small positive, but it is ambiguous.

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 very short and the core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence. 'Path discarded' is efficient but slightly elliptical, so it is not quite a 5.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and a 9-parameter input, the two-phrase description is incomplete. An agent would not know what a successful parse returns, whether this is validation or extraction, or which parameters beyond url/path matter.

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 schema already documents all 9 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by identifying the relevant input as a Figma file URL (whereas the schema's 'url' description is generic) and confirming the path is ignored. It does not explicitly name the 'url' parameter, but that is inferable.

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 action ('Parse') and a specific resource ('a Figma file URL'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling URL tools like normalize-url or web-fetch. The additional 'Path discarded' note, while terse, does not obscure the core purpose.

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 a use case: when an agent needs to parse a Figma file URL. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it, no prerequisites, and no comparison to sibling tools such as browser-url-ok or normalize-url.

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