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

With no annotations, the description must explain side effects and behavior itself. It only says the path is discarded, which directly conflicts with the schema's 'path' parameter described as 'File path to check'. It also does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what it returns, or how invalid URLs are handled.

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 short and front-loaded, but the fragment 'Path discarded' creates more ambiguity than value. It is concise, but the brevity sacrifices needed clarity.

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?

For a tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling tools, this six-word description is insufficient. An agent cannot determine which parameter to pass, what the tool returns, or how to distinguish it from normalize-url and browser-url-ok.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description does not clarify which of the nine parameters are relevant for a Figma URL shape check. The 'Path discarded' comment contradicts the schema's path parameter, and the url description ('HTTPS URL to normalize or cite') is not aligned with the stated Figma parsing purpose.

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 identifies a specific verb and resource ('Parse a Figma file URL'), which distinguishes it from generic URL tools like normalize-url. However, it never states what the parse produces or whether this is a validation, normalization, or extraction tool, and 'Path discarded' is ambiguous.

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 on when to use this tool versus normalize-url, browser-url-ok, or any of the other shape-checking siblings. The only hint is the word 'Figma', with no exclusions, conditions, or comparison to alternatives.

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