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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the path is discarded, which is a minor behavioral note, but it says nothing about side effects, return values, or whether the tool is read-only. For a parse operation, 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 extremely short (two sentences), which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently trimmed. It lacks essential details, so the brevity works against usefulness. The structure is flat and does not prioritize critical information.

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 output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, which parameters are relevant, or how the URL is processed. An agent cannot confidently invoke this tool based on the given description.

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 fully documents all 9 parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond 'Path discarded,' which doesn't clarify which parameters are actually used or how they relate. The description fails to compensate for the ambiguity of having many irrelevant-looking parameters.

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 verb ('Parse') and a resource ('Figma file URL'), but 'parse' is ambiguous — it could mean validation, extraction, or normalization. It does not distinguish the tool from siblings like 'normalize-url' or 'domain-shape', which also handle URLs. The added 'Path discarded' hints at behavior but doesn't clarify the tool's core function.

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 conditions, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred. The agent is left to infer that it's for Figma URLs, but even that is not explicit.

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