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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Path discarded' is the only behavioral detail; it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what it returns, or how unmatched inputs are handled.

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 front-loaded, with no filler. However, it is almost too terse to be useful on its own.

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?

There is no output schema, no required parameters, and no explanation of how the parser behaves. The presence of many seemingly irrelevant optional parameters makes the tool's contract incomplete.

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 high, but the parameter descriptions are generic and mostly unrelated to parsing a Figma URL (e.g., city, feed, zone, query). The description adds no tool-specific meaning to the parameters, and it is unclear which of the nine optional fields are actually used.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Parse a Figma file URL.' The phrase 'Path discarded' hints at behavior but doesn't fully clarify what parsing returns or how it differs from sibling URL tools.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like normalize-url, domain-shape, or github-repo-shape. It does not mention prerequisites, intended input, or exclusions.

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