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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only mentions that the path is discarded, leaving unspecified what the tool does with the URL, what it returns, or whether it makes network calls. This is minimal coverage for a tool with 9 parameters.

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 only one sentence, which is under-specified for a tool with 9 parameters. It is not 'conciseness' but rather a lack of essential information, so it scores low on appropriate sizing.

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, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain the tool's purpose across parameters, return behavior, or side effects, leaving many ambiguities for the agent.

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 does not add parameter-specific semantics, but the schema already documents each parameter (e.g., 'url' is 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite'), so the agent has sufficient information.

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 a specific resource ('Figma file URL'), and adds a behavioral detail ('Path discarded'). This distinguishes it from sibling URL tools like normalize-url or browser-url-ok, though it does not explain what 'parse' yields (e.g., validation, component extraction).

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as normalize-url, domain-shape, or github-repo-shape. The description is a single sentence with no context about intended scenarios or exclusions.

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