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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only reveals that the URL path is discarded, but it does not disclose what the tool returns (e.g., whether it validates, extracts components, or just checks the shape), nor any side effects or error behavior. For a parsing tool, this is a significant gap—an agent cannot predict the output or failure modes.

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—two short sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded. However, it is so terse that it sacrifices necessary context, bordering on under-specification rather than effective conciseness. Still, it earns a 4 for efficiency.

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's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is clearly incomplete. It does not explain why the schema includes unrelated parameters like city, feed, json, and zone, nor how they relate to a Figma URL shape check. An agent cannot determine the full scope of the tool's behavior or when to supply these parameters. This is a major gap.

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%, so a baseline of 3 applies. However, the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Worse, the phrase 'Path discarded' may confuse the 'path' input parameter (a file path to check) with the URL's path component, as they are different concepts. The description fails to clarify the role of the many unrelated parameters (city, feed, json, etc.) which are not mentioned at all.

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 specific verb ('Parse') and resource ('a Figma file URL'), and explicitly notes the path is discarded. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like normalize-url or browser-url-ok, which have different scopes. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling URL-related tools (e.g., normalize-url, browser-url-ok, domain-shape). It does not state any exclusions or conditions that would select this tool over alternatives. The usage context is only implied by the name, not explicit.

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