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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that the path is discarded, which is a minor detail about the input, not about the tool's own behavior. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, performs network calls, has side effects, or what the return value looks like. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 (one sentence), which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately sized. It front-loads the purpose but omits essential information like which parameter to use, what output to expect, and any behavioral constraints. The brevity here works against usefulness.

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?

For a tool with 9 parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, this description is far from complete. It does not explain the primary input, the expected output format, or the tool's role among its siblings. The presence of many unrelated parameters without clarification makes it impossible for an agent to correctly invoke the tool for its stated purpose.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 9 parameters, but the tool description does not connect the stated purpose to any specific parameter. It says 'Parse a Figma file URL' without indicating that the 'url' parameter is the relevant one. Many parameters (city, feed, json, zone, etc.) appear unrelated to Figma URL parsing, creating confusion. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema's basic property descriptions and fails to compensate for the mismatch.

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.' However, it does not clarify what 'parse' entails (validation, extraction, normalization) or how it differs from siblings like normalize-url or web-fetch. The phrase 'Path discarded' adds a detail but is ambiguous—does it mean the tool ignores the path when parsing, or that it discards the path from the output? This leaves the core purpose under-specified.

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 alternatives. No mention of context, conditions, or exclusions. The description is a single imperative with no comparative or situational information, so an agent cannot decide between this and related URL tools.

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