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

The description mentions that the path is discarded, which is a minimal behavioral note. However, it does not disclose output format, errors, side effects, or any permissions, and with no annotations provided, the burden is fully on the description.

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 brief (two sentences), which is concise, but it omits critical information such as which parameter is the URL or what the result shape is. It is structured simply but lacks necessary content for usability.

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?

Given the tool has 9 optional parameters and no required ones, the description is severely incomplete. It does not specify how to invoke the tool, what input is expected, or what output is produced, leaving the agent without enough context to use it correctly.

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?

Although the schema has descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage), they are generic and irrelevant to the stated tool purpose (e.g., 'city' as 'City name for a public weather hint'). The description fails to map any parameter to the Figma URL input, making the parameters effectively meaningless for execution.

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 a verb ('Parse') and a resource ('Figma file URL'), but the parameter schema contains many unrelated fields (e.g., 'city', 'feed', 'ref') with no indication of which one corresponds to the Figma URL, creating confusion about the actual purpose.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool over siblings like 'normalize-url' or 'domain-shape', nor any conditions or alternatives.

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