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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only that 'Path discarded' (presumably the URL path), but fails to mention side effects, return format, or whether it performs network calls or validation. This is significant under-disclosure for a tool with nine parameters and no annotation safety info.

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 sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, making it easy to scan. However, the brevity borders on under-specification, though for a simple intent 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?

Given the tool has 9 parameters (all optional), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain the return value, the relationship between the parameters, or any edge cases. An agent would struggle to know what to pass and what to expect.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no clarifying value and even introduces ambiguity: 'Path discarded' could be misread as the 'path' parameter being discarded, while the schema describes that parameter as a file path check. The description does not clarify which parameters are relevant or how they map to the URL parsing behavior.

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 ('Parse') and a specific resource ('a Figma file URL'), distinguishing it from generic URL tools like normalize-url or browser-url-ok. However, it doesn't clarify what 'parse' yields (e.g., validation result, normalized string) or what 'shape' implies, leaving some ambiguity about the exact 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its many siblings (e.g., normalize-url, domain-shape, github-repo-shape). There is no mention of alternatives, exclusions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer 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.