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

The description only states 'Path discarded,' which is a minor behavioral detail. With no annotations, it carries the full burden of disclosing side effects, return values, or error behavior, but it provides almost nothing. An agent cannot infer whether this makes network calls, is read-only, or what output to expect.

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?

Two sentences are used, which is extremely brief, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. Key information about purpose, usage, and behavior is omitted, so the brevity is not beneficial.

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 is grossly inadequate. It fails to explain the 'shape check,' what the tool returns, or how it differs from sibling tools. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool based on the given information.

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% (all parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. However, the description's focus on Figma URL conflicts with the many unrelated parameters, and it does not clarify which parameter corresponds to the Figma URL or how others are handled. The description actually adds confusion rather than clarifying parameter usage.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Parse a Figma file URL.' However, it is limited to Figma while the schema accepts nine unrelated parameters (city, feed, host, etc.), creating confusion about the tool's actual scope. It also fails to distinguish from sibling tools like normalize-url or domain-shape that handle URLs.

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 such as browser-url-ok or normalize-url. The description lacks any mention of appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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