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

The description discloses that the path is discarded, but it does not mention side effects, network access, or whether the operation is read-only. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, and it fails to state any behavioral traits other than input handling.

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 primary purpose, which is good for conciseness. However, it is so minimal that it omits essential details, though that is more a completeness issue than a structure issue.

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?

Given the tool has nine parameters, no output schema, and many siblings, the description is severely incomplete. It does not mention expected output, parameter relationships, or any edge cases, leaving an agent without enough information to use it correctly.

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 description does not explain how any of the nine parameters relate to the Figma URL parsing purpose. While the schema provides individual parameter descriptions, they appear disjointed (e.g., 'City name for a public weather hint') and the tool description adds no clarity on how they are used together.

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 action (parse) and a specific resource (Figma file URL), and even notes that the path is discarded. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like normalize-url or browser-url-ok, nor does it explain what the parsing produces.

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 any of the many sibling tools, nor any mention of conditions or alternatives. The description is purely a statement of function without usage context.

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