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 explain whether the tool validates, fetches, normalizes, what happens with invalid URLs, or whether any network access occurs. Minimal behavioral insight.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The key action is front-loaded, and 'Path discarded' is a compact behavioral note. Slightly cryptic, but there is no wasted words.

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?

The tool has 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, raising the need for description detail. This description does not specify the output, required parameter, invalid-input behavior, or how it differs from sibling URL tools, leaving a substantial gap.

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. The description adds domain context ('Figma file URL') that helps select the relevant `url` parameter, but it does not explain which parameter to use or how the 9 unrelated parameters fit.

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?

States a specific action ('Parse') and resource ('a Figma file URL'), so an agent can tell this is the tool for Figma URLs among the sibling shape/URL tools. However, it does not say what 'shape' means or what the tool returns, so the purpose is clear but not fully explicit.

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 given about when to use this tool versus siblings like normalize-url, browser-url-ok, or github-repo-shape. The only implied context is the phrase 'Figma file URL', but there are no exclusions or alternatives mentioned.

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