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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal one meaningful behavior, that the path is discarded, but it says nothing about network access, validation side effects, return behavior, or failure cases. This is partial transparency at best.

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 short, front-loaded, and free of filler: the main purpose comes first and the discarded-path behavior is a distinct addition. It is somewhat under-specified for a nine-parameter tool, but it is still more concise than padded.

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 annotations, no output schema, and a nine-parameter optional-only input schema, a single sentence is radically insufficient. The description never says which parameters are relevant, what the tool returns, or how the parser behaves in edge cases, so an agent cannot reliably infer the full contract.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is already 3. The description does not add meaningful parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, and it never explains why the schema contains many unrelated-looking string parameters such as city, feed, or zone.

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 specifies a concrete verb and resource: 'Parse a Figma file URL.' It is clear enough for an agent to infer the tool's main job, but it does not explicitly distinguish this from URL-related siblings like normalize-url or browser-url-ok, so it earns a 4 rather than 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 about when to use this tool instead of alternatives, no mention of preconditions, and no when-not-to-use advice. The agent can only guess from the tool name that this belongs to the family of shape-check tools, which is weak support for routing.

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