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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one non-obvious behavioral trait: the path component is discarded, implying the parse ignores URL depth. The schema-level hints ('no disk access', 'discarded after the shape check') reinforce a local, side-effect-free parse. However, it never states whether the tool makes network calls, whether it validates or extracts, or what a failed parse looks like, so core behavior remains opaque.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler; the primary action is front-loaded and the secondary constraint follows immediately. Every word earns its place, and nothing in the text is redundant with the schema.

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 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far from complete. It fails to identify which parameter is the true input (only implied via 'Figma file URL'), does not describe the return value, and gives no network-vs-local confirmation. The schema's extraneous 'discarded' parameters actually add confusion rather than context, and the description does not defuse it.

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?

Baseline is 3 because schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds one useful piece of disambiguation: by naming Figma file URLs it signals that the 'url' parameter is the operative input among nine mostly unrelated optional parameters. It does not, however, reconcile the confusing mismatch where params like 'city' (weather hint) and 'feed' (RSS) appear on a Figma URL tool, and 'Path discarded' is ambiguous between the URL path and the 'path' 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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource pair ('Parse a Figma file URL') that names the exact domain of the tool, setting it apart from URL sibling tools like normalize-url or domain-shape. The added trait 'Path discarded' further distinguishes its behavior from a generic URL parser. It stops short of a 5 because it never states what the tool returns (a shape verdict? parsed components?), leaving the core purpose slightly under-specified.

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 the many overlapping URL siblings (browser-url-ok, playwright-url-ok, normalize-url, web-fetch, domain-shape). The only usage signal is implicit: the name and 'Figma file URL' imply it is for Figma URLs. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-conditions are stated, which is a real gap given 26 siblings.

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