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

The only behavioral detail is 'Path discarded,' which is minimal. With no annotations to cover side effects, the description leaves unclear whether the tool performs network access, validation, or simply parsing the URL string.

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 short and easy to read, but it omits critical information such as the output format or which parameters are meaningful. It is concise at the expense of usefulness.

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 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot determine expected return value, parameter relevance, or error conditions, making the tool effectively opaque.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, but most parameters (city, feed, host, json, query, etc.) are unrelated to a Figma URL parser and appear to be boilerplate. The descriptions do not clarify which parameters are actually relevant to this tool's 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 a clear verb and resource ('Parse a Figma file URL') and notes the path is discarded, but it does not specify what output is produced (e.g., whether it returns a normalized URL, a validation result, or extracted components). It is not enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like domain-shape or normalize-url beyond the Figma-specific subject.

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. The description never mentions related tools or conditions for preferring this over normalize-url, domain-shape, or other sibling validators.

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