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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the path is discarded, but remains silent about whether the URL is fetched, what constitutes a valid Figma URL, or what the return value is. Those are material gaps for a 9-parameter tool.

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?

Extremely short and front-loaded. The main action is in the first sentence, and the behavioral scoping detail follows immediately. No redundant words.

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?

A 9-parameter tool with no required params, no annotations, and no output schema needs more context than this. The description does not identify which parameter is the Figma URL, how invalid URLs behave, or what an agent should expect back, leaving crucial ambiguity.

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 parameters themselves are documented. The description adds almost nothing beyond the schema; it only implies the url parameter is relevant and that path is ignored. Baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb (Parse) and resource (Figma file URL), which is enough to distinguish it from generic URL tools at a glance. 'Path discarded.' adds a scoping detail, though it does not explain what parsing or shape validation actually produces.

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 instead of normalize-url, browser-url-ok, domain-shape, or other siblings. No exclusions, alternatives, or conditions are stated.

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