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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only discloses that the path is discarded; it does not state what the tool returns, how invalid URLs are handled, or any side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, 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), but brevity here is under-specification rather than efficiency. It is front-loaded but omits essential context. It earns a middle score for being free of fluff, but it lacks substance.

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 9 parameters, no required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. An agent cannot determine which parameters to pass, what the tool does with them, or what a successful call looks like. Sibling tools suggest a family of shape-checkers, but this description does not explain the tool's role.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds no clarification about which of the 9 parameters are relevant. Many parameters (city, feed, zone, etc.) seem unrelated to parsing a Figma URL, and the description does not disambiguate. It fails to add meaning beyond the generic schema descriptions.

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 specific verb ('Parse') and a specific resource ('Figma file URL'), and adds a behavioral note ('Path discarded'). It distinguishes from generic URL tools like normalize-url by scoping to Figma files, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 versus siblings like browser-url-ok or domain-shape. There is no mention of intended context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess.

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