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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only offers 'Path discarded', which is ambiguous—it could mean ignoring the URL path or discarding the 'path' parameter. It doesn't state whether the operation is read-only, what it returns, or how invalid URLs are handled, leaving major behavioral gaps.

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 concise and front-loaded, with no filler words. The two short statements are easy to scan. It sacrifices informative context for brevity, so it does not reach a perfect score.

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?

The tool has 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description only says to parse a Figma URL and discard the path. It doesn't mention what the tool returns, which parameter to use, or why the unrelated parameters exist. This is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool, especially given the large sibling list.

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 slight meaning by implying the 'url' parameter should be a Figma file URL rather than the generic 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite'. However, it doesn't clarify the role of the other eight parameters, and 'Path discarded' creates possible confusion with 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 states a specific action ('Parse') and resource ('a Figma file URL'), which distinguishes it from generic URL tools like normalize-url or browser-url-ok. The added 'Path discarded' hints at scoping behavior. However, it does not explain what the parse result is or explicitly contrast with sibling tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

The description provides no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any reference to alternatives such as other *-shape tools or URL validators. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is for Figma URL shape checking. No explicit selection criteria are given.

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