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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the path is discarded, which is a behavioral trait, but it does not mention whether the tool performs any validation, what the output format is, whether it makes network requests, or if it has side effects. For a parse/check tool, this is a significant gap.

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 concise: two short phrases with zero fluff. The core action and the key constraint (path discarded) are front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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, this description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, whether it validates or extracts, or how to interpret the result. The many irrelevant parameters are not addressed, and an agent has no way to know what to do with the output. This is inadequate for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all 9 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context that the 'url' parameter is specifically a Figma file URL, which helps clarify its role. However, it doesn't explicitly state that the other parameters are ignored, even though the schema hints at this via 'discarded' phrases. Overall, the description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 resource ('Figma file URL'), and even notes that the path is discarded, which distinguishes it from generic URL tools. However, it doesn't specify what 'parse' returns (e.g., a boolean, a normalized form, extracted fields), so the purpose is somewhat ambiguous.

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 provided on when to use this tool instead of sibling URL tools like normalize-url, browser-url-ok, or fetch-status. The description does not mention any conditions or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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