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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only discloses that the path is discarded. It does not state whether the tool is a local shape check, performs any network access, what it returns, or how malformed 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?

At two short sentences, the description is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. There is no filler, though the second fragment ('Path discarded') is cryptic and might be better expressed as part of the behavior.

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 an annotation-free tool with nine parameters and no output schema, this description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the return value, side effects, which parameters are relevant, or what happens when the input is not a Figma URL.

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%, so the baseline applies; every parameter has at least a description. The tool description adds no real mapping to those parameters, and the `url` parameter is described generically ('HTTPS URL to normalize or cite') rather than as a Figma URL, so an agent gets little help selecting the right input.

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 ('Parse') and a specific resource ('Figma file URL'), so an agent knows the tool is about Figma URLs. However, it does not say that the tool validates the URL's shape or differentiates itself from normalize-url/browser-url-ok, 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 the many sibling URL/shape tools, and no exclusion criteria or alternative suggestions. The only implicit signal is the mention of Figma, which the agent must infer.

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