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 useful, but fails to mention whether the URL is validated, what parts are returned, or whether any network access occurs. For a tool with 9 parameters, this is dangerously sparse.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It is concise, but for a tool with 9 parameters and no other documentation, the brevity may be a liability. Still, as a standalone purpose statement, it is efficient.

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?

The tool has 9 parameters (city, feed, host, json, zone, etc.) that are seemingly unrelated to a Figma URL parser. The description provides no explanation of the role of these parameters, whether they are ignored, or how the tool behaves with them. With no output schema and no annotations, the description is woefully incomplete for an agent to call 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning—it doesn't even indicate which parameter is the primary input (presumably 'url'). Since the schema already documents each parameter, the description adds little value beyond confirming the general purpose.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Parse a Figma file URL.' It also adds a behavioral detail ('Path discarded.'). This is clear enough to distinguish it from generic URL tools, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools or contrast with them, so it misses the top score.

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 like browser-url-ok, normalize-url, or domain-shape. The description implies it is for Figma URLs, but does not state exclusions or mention other tools. An agent is left to infer the appropriate context.

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