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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that the path is discarded and that it parses a URL, but it does not state what the tool returns, whether it validates or normalizes, or what happens on invalid input. This is insufficient for an agent to anticipate behavior.

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 extremely concise, two short sentences with no filler. It is efficiently structured, though the brevity comes at the cost of substance. As a conciseness measure, it scores well; it is not bloated.

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 and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain what the parsed result looks like, how the output is delivered, or when to use this tool among the many URL-related siblings. An agent would be left guessing about expected outcomes.

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 schema already documents all 9 parameters. The description adds no extra meaning about parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies. It neither clarifies nor contradicts the schema.

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 clearly states the verb 'parse' and the resource 'Figma file URL', and adds a specific behavioral note ('Path discarded'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like normalize-url or browser-url-ok, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is the right choice.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many URL-related siblings. The description offers no context about appropriate use cases, conditions, or exclusions.

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