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. It does reveal one behavior—'Path discarded'—but fails to state whether the tool makes network calls, what happens with invalid URLs, what output format is returned, or how parsing is performed. This is insufficient for a tool with no other transparency signals.

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 short and front-loaded with no filler words, which is good. But it is under-specified for the complexity of the input schema, so the brevity comes at the cost of necessary operational detail.

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 nine parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is far too sparse. It does not describe return values, required inputs, failure behavior, or how this tool relates to normalize-url and other URL tools. An agent would have difficulty calling it correctly.

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, and the description does add the 'Figma file URL' qualifier. However, the schema's 'url' property is described as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite,' which conflicts with the assertion that this tool parses Figma URLs. The description also does not clarify which of the nine optional parameters actually applies to this tool, leaving invocation ambiguous.

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 and resource: 'Parse a Figma file URL.' This is a clear verb+resource pairing that goes beyond a tautology. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling URL tools like normalize-url or browser-url-ok, and the meaning of 'Path discarded' is ambiguous.

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 implies it should be used when a Figma file URL needs to be parsed, which gives some contextual guidance. But it provides no explicit exclusions or alternatives, so the agent may struggle to choose between this and the many URL-related sibling tools.

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