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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only parsing operation but does not explicitly disclose side effects, error behavior, or whether the input URL is validated or normalized.

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, with only two short sentences and no unnecessary detail. It front-loads the primary action and resource, making it easy to scan.

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 no output schema and no return-value description, the tool's output is completely unspecified. Additionally, the parameter list contains many irrelevant fields that are not explained in context, leaving the agent without enough information to invoke the tool correctly.

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 description, most are clearly mismatched with the tool's purpose (e.g., 'ref' is described as a Git ref name, 'city' as a weather hint, 'zone' as a timezone). These descriptions appear copied from other tools and provide misleading or irrelevant semantics for a Figma URL parser.

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 a specific verb ('Parse') and a specific resource ('a Figma file URL'), and adds a distinguishing detail ('Path discarded'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like normalize-url or browser-url-ok, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or context. The description only states what the tool does, not when it should be chosen.

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