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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure; it only says 'Path discarded.' It fails to disclose whether the tool performs network access, what it returns, or how it handles invalid or real Figma URLs.

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?

Six words are front-loaded but underspecified rather than appropriately concise for a tool with nine optional parameters. 'Path discarded' is ambiguous—whether URL path or the 'path' parameter—and the entry lacks usable structure.

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?

No output schema, no annotations, and no required parameters; the description does not tell an agent what to pass, what success looks like, or what result is produced. This is insufficient for reliable invocation.

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 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning and does not indicate which of the nine optional fields is relevant, but the schema already documents each parameter.

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?

States a specific action and resource: 'Parse a Figma file URL.' The mention of Figma differentiates it from sibling URL/shape tools such as domain-shape or normalize-url. The phrase 'Path discarded' adds a shred of scope but leaves the extraction target unclear.

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 guidance on when to use this tool over sibling URL/shape tools, no exclusions, and no indication which input (likely url) should be provided. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the verb 'parse'.

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