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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden, and the only behavioral clue is the cryptic "Path discarded." It does not say whether the tool performs network access, validates output, mutates state, or what it returns, leaving material behavior undisclosed.

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 extremely terse and free of filler, which makes it superficially concise. However, "Path discarded" is cryptic and the wording is so thin that it becomes under-specification rather than well-crafted conciseness.

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 unrelated parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too sparse to let an agent invoke it correctly. It omits return values, error scenarios, network behavior, and which parameters are relevant for a Figma URL parse, making the documentation contextually incomplete.

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% for all nine parameters, so the baseline is adequate. The description's reference to a Figma file URL loosely clarifies the intended `url` type but does not explain the odd other parameters such as `city`, `feed`, `json`, or `zone`, nor does it map the claim about discarded paths to named parameters.

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?

"Parse a Figma file URL" is a specific verb+resource that immediately identifies the tool's domain and distinguishes it from generic URL tools like normalize-url. The added "Path discarded" gives a useful behavior hint, though it stops short of explicitly contrasting with sibling shape tools like github-repo-shape.

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 alternatives such as playwright-url-ok, browser-url-ok, or normalize-url. The description implies it is for parsing Figma URLs, but it never states when-not-to-use it, prerequisites, or selection criteria.

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