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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Parse a Figma file URL. Path discarded.' This does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether it makes network calls, what it returns, or what happens to the other inputs.

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 short and front-loaded with the main purpose, but the second sentence 'Path discarded' is a confusing fragment. It reads more like a cryptic note than a helpful clarification, so conciseness comes at the cost of clarity.

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 nine optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, two sentences provide far too little context. The description does not explain what the tool returns, which parameters are actually used, or why unrelated parameters such as timezone and weather are present.

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 even without parameter-level details in the description. The description adds only a 'Figma file' qualifier to the `url` parameter, but it does not clarify the purpose of the other eight unrelated parameters like `city`, `feed`, `json`, and `query`.

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 and resource — 'Parse a Figma file URL' — which broadly distinguishes this tool from sibling URL/shape tools like normalize-url or github-repo-shape. The phrase 'Path discarded' is vague and adds noise but does not undermine the core purpose.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of sibling tools such as normalize-url or github-repo-shape. The only usage signal is the 'Figma file URL' phrase, which is implied rather than spelled out.

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