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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It only states that a path is discarded, with no clarification about return values, whether this is read-only, or what happens with non-Figma URLs; this is insufficient for safe and correct invocation.

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, front-loaded with the main action, and does not waste words. The second sentence is terse, but it attempts to convey a behavioral constraint and is not redundant padding.

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 the lack of an output schema or annotations, a nine-parameter schema, and many sibling URL tools, this two-sentence description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value, which parameter should hold the Figma URL, or how this differs from sibling tools such as normalize-url, leaving too much to inference.

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 the baseline is 3 even without extra parameter details. The description adds no meaningful mapping beyond the schema, and it never connects the `url` parameter to the Figma URL, but the schema does describe each parameter individually.

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 action ('Parse') and a specific resource ('a Figma file URL'), which is enough to distinguish this from generic URL tools such as normalize-url. The 'Path discarded' fragment is ambiguous, preventing a perfect score.

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 input type implies this tool should be used for Figma file URLs, so an agent gets some context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to sibling alternatives for other URL shapes or URL normalization.

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