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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It states only 'Parse a Figma file URL. Path discarded.' This reveals almost nothing about behavior: what is validated, what the return value is, side effects, or how the many other parameters are handled. The phrase 'Path discarded' contradicts the schema's 'path' parameter that claims to check a file path with no disk access, creating confusion rather than transparency.

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 short (one sentence and a fragment), but this is under-specification, not concise effectiveness. It front-loads an unhelpful purpose and omits essential context. A concise description would still convey the tool's multi-purpose nature or scope; this one is simply too sparse to be useful.

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?

With 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description must compensate heavily. It does not even address the majority of parameters, nor does it clarify the tool's overall function. For an agent to call this tool correctly, it would need much more information about which parameters apply and what the tool does with them. The description is wholly inadequate for the tool's complexity.

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, but the description adds no meaningful semantics and actively misleads by implying only the URL matters. It does not explain the relationship between the 'url' parameter and the nine others, nor does it clarify which are relevant to Figma URL parsing. The description detracts from, rather than augments, the schema's already clear parameter descriptions.

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 purpose—'Parse a Figma file URL'—but the input schema includes 9 unrelated parameters (city, feed, json, zone, etc.) with hints about weather, RSS, validation, and timezones. This mismatch makes the actual purpose ambiguous: is this a Figma URL parser or a generic shape checker? The description fails to clarify the tool's real scope, so an agent cannot reliably determine what it does.

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 versus the many siblings (e.g., normalize-url, validate-json, domain-shape). The description does not mention alternatives or exclusions. An agent has no basis for selecting this tool over others that appear to cover parts of its parameter set.

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