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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It reveals one behavioral trait, 'Path discarded,' but doesn't say whether the call performs network access, returns a validation result, or ignores the other eight schema properties. This is thin coverage for a tool with no annotation safety information.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and no wasted words. Each sentence contributes: the first defines the operation, the second states a key limitation.

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 a 9-parameter schema and no output schema, the description covers only the core action and one limitation. An agent is left uncertain about return values, whether side effects occur, and whether non-URL parameters matter. More context is needed.

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%, establishing the baseline of 3. The description adds a small amount of context by identifying the Figma file URL as the focal input, but it doesn't meaningfully explain the roles of the remaining parameters beyond what the schema already says.

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 and resource: 'Parse a Figma file URL.' This differentiates it from siblings like normalize-url or browser-url-ok. However, it doesn't specify what the parse produces (validity flag, file key, etc.), so it stops 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?

The intended use—when you have a Figma file URL and need to parse it—is implied by the action and resource. There is no explicit when-not guidance or comparison to alternatives such as normalize-url or browser-url-ok, so usage guidance is left to inference.

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