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

The only behavior disclosed is that the path is discarded. It does not mention side effects, network access, permissions, or error conditions. Since no annotations are provided, the description bears full responsibility, and it falls short.

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 text is short but structurally deceptive: the description mentions only URL and path, while the schema exposes many unrelated parameters. The brevity is not an asset because it omits critical scoping information and misleads the agent.

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's purpose is unclear given the parameter list; the schema includes parameters that appear to belong to other tools (weather, RSS, timezone, JSON validation). The description does not reconcile this, leaving the agent without a complete understanding of the tool's inputs and outputs.

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 lists nine parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) with descriptions that are generic and unrelated to parsing a Figma URL. The description does not explain how these parameters relate to the tool's purpose, creating a severe semantic mismatch.

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 it parses a Figma file URL and discards the path, but it does not clarify what 'parse' means or what output is produced. It is specific about the resource but vague about the operation's result.

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 does not indicate when this tool should be used over siblings, nor does it mention any alternative tools. It lacks contextual guidance for an agent to select it appropriately.

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