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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It only states that the path is discarded, which is a minor behavioral detail. It does not mention whether the tool makes network calls, validates, or what it returns. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 a single sentence, which is concise. However, it sacrifices necessary information for brevity, so it's not well-structured for agent use.

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 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a one-sentence description is grossly inadequate. It fails to explain the tool's purpose, return value, or how the extra parameters fit in. This is a major 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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter information beyond the schema, and it doesn't even reference any of the 9 parameters. The schema descriptions are generic placeholders, but the tool description doesn't clarify how they relate to Figma URL parsing.

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 states a clear verb (Parse) and resource (Figma file URL), and adds a behavioral note that the path is discarded. However, it does not differentiate from sibling URL tools like normalize-url or browser-url-ok, nor does it state what the output is, so it's clear but not distinguishing enough.

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 others. No mention of alternatives or exclusions. An agent would have to infer that this is specific to Figma URLs, but there is no explicit routing.

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