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

With no annotations provided, the description is the only source of behavioral disclosure, yet it only mentions that the path is discarded. It does not explain what happens to the other eight parameters (e.g., city, feed, json, zone, query) or whether the tool is read-only, making the behavior largely 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 description is very concise at two sentences, but it is too terse for a tool with nine parameters and no output schema. It lacks structured information about parameters or return values, making it minimal but not well-formed for usability.

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?

There is no output schema, no return value description, and no explanation of how the nine parameters interrelate to the Figma URL parsing task. The presence of many unrelated parameters (e.g., city, feed, json, zone, query) creates a high context requirement that the description does not meet.

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 every parameter has a schema description, those descriptions are inconsistent with the tool's stated purpose: 'url' says 'normalize or cite' instead of 'parse Figma URL', and 'path' says 'check' while the tool description says the path is discarded. The descriptions add confusion rather than clarifying how each parameter contributes to the tool, so despite 100% coverage they are not semantically helpful.

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 clearly states the verb 'parse' and the resource 'Figma file URL', and explicitly notes that 'Path discarded' clarifies a key behavior. This differentiates it from sibling tools like normalize-url or fetch-status without needing to read the schema.

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?

The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as normalize-url or browser-url-ok. It does not state conditions or exclusions, leaving the selection to inference from the name and single purpose line.

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