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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only says 'Path discarded.' It does not mention that other parameters are also discarded, what the function returns, or whether it performs any network access. The minimal disclosure is inadequate for a tool with 9 parameters.

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 one sentence and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It omits critical information needed to use the tool correctly, so the brevity is a drawback, not a strength.

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 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain the return format, the purpose of each parameter, or how the tool handles invalid inputs. An agent cannot determine correct invocation from this description alone.

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, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds no value beyond that. Worse, the description's mention of 'Path discarded' conflicts with the schema's description of the path parameter ('File path to check; no disk access'), creating confusion. The description fails to explain how the various parameters relate to the stated Figma URL 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 'Parse a Figma file URL' with a clear verb and resource, but it is vague about what parsing entails or what output is produced. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like normalize-url or browser-url-ok, and the presence of many unrelated parameters (city, feed, json) makes the actual scope 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 versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions or conditions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone. The description is silent on the role of the non-URL parameters.

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