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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions that the path is discarded, which hints at read-only normalization, but it does not state whether the tool is side-effect-free, what it returns, or any error conditions. This lack of explicit behavioral detail is a significant gap.

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—two short sentences with no redundancy or filler. It front-loads the primary action and immediately clarifies a key behavior (path discarded), making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

Despite having 9 optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides almost no overarching context. It does not explain how parameters relate to the parsing task, what the returned result looks like, or what 'parse' means in this specific tool. The tool is complex enough that this sparse description leaves the agent largely uninformed about the full workflow.

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?

The schema already provides 100% parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'Path discarded' adds a small detail about how the URL path is treated, but it does not meaningfully enhance understanding of the other 8 parameters or their interplay. Since the schema covers most semantics, the description adds only marginal value.

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 the action ('Parse') and the specific resource ('a Figma file URL'), so an agent can understand the basic purpose. However, it does not specify what the parsing produces or the outcome, leaving some ambiguity about the tool's exact function.

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 the many sibling tools (e.g., normalize-url, fetch-status, browser-url-ok). The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or alternative tools, leaving the agent without direction on appropriate invocation.

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