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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals one behavior ('Path discarded') but does not explain what parsing returns, whether it validates shape, how errors are handled, or what other parts of the URL are used. This is a minimal and incomplete disclosure for a tool with no annotation support.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core action. Both sentences carry meaning: the first identifies the scope, the second a key behavior. No filler is present. However, the brevity borders on under-specification given the tool's 9-parameter schema, so it is not a perfect 5.

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?

With 9 parameters, 0 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. It does not specify which parameter receives the Figma URL, what the output shape is, or what 'path discarded' means in practice. An agent does not have enough context to correctly invoke this tool without guessing.

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?

Although the schema has 100% description coverage for its 9 parameters, the tool description does not map the Figma URL to any specific parameter. The only plausible match is 'url', but its schema description says 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', which is generic and does not mention Figma. The phrase 'Path discarded' could even be misinterpreted as referring to the 'path' parameter rather than the URL's path, adding confusion rather than clarity.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Parse a Figma file URL.' This identifies the tool's core function and distinguishes it from generic URL tools like normalize-url or browser-url-ok. However, it does not explicitly compare to siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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 description gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as normalize-url, browser-url-ok, or domain-shape. It also fails to mention any prerequisites or conditions, leaving usage entirely to inference.

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