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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does reveal a non-obvious trait: 'Path discarded,' which tells the agent that the path component is intentionally ignored. However, it omits other important behaviors such as whether the tool performs network access, returns a boolean, or produces a normalized result, leaving the agent with only partial transparency.

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 two short sentences with no filler. 'Parse a Figma file URL.' states the core action, and 'Path discarded.' adds a crucial behavioral caveat. Every word earns its place, and the most important scoping information is front-loaded.

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 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is far too sparse. It does not explain what the parsed result contains, whether the url parameter is the primary input, or how the many unrelated parameters (city, feed, json, zone, query) should be handled. An agent cannot confidently know what to pass or what to expect in return.

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 though the description adds no parameter-level detail. Each of the 9 parameters has its own schema description, including 'discarded after the check' for path and relevant notes for url and host. The description does not add meaning beyond those schema entries, so it stays at baseline.

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 verb and resource: 'Parse a Figma file URL.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from generic URL tools and sibling shape checkers by naming the Figma domain explicitly. It loses a point because 'parse' is somewhat ambiguous—it doesn't state whether this means validation, normalization, or extraction—and it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention which sibling to prefer for non-Figma URLs, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites. The only implied usage is 'when you have a Figma file URL,' but no explicit routing or comparison is provided.

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