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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The only behavioral detail is 'Path discarded', implying the path component is ignored. It does not disclose what the tool returns, side effects, or how it treats the other eight parameters. This is minimal disclosure for a tool with such a broad schema.

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 very short (one sentence), which is concise, but it is under-specified. It lacks any structure to convey the tool's multi-parameter nature or its output. The single statement 'Path discarded' is ambiguous and not front-loaded with essential context.

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, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain the tool's overall function, what it validates, what it returns, or how the parameters relate. An agent cannot reliably call this tool based on the description alone.

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 each parameter already has a description, yielding a baseline of 3. However, the tool description only mentions Figma URLs while the schema includes unrelated params like city and feed, which could mislead an agent. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema and actually conflicts with the schema's broader scope.

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 resource ('Figma file URL'), which gives a clear action and object. However, it does not distinguish this tool from many URL-related siblings like normalize-url or browser-url-ok, and the schema shows 9 unrelated parameters (city, feed, json, etc.) that the description ignores, making the actual scope 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 mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not name any sibling tool, give criteria for selection, or state exclusions. An agent has no guidance on choosing this over other URL shape checkers.

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