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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that the path is discarded, which is a minor detail. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, how it handles invalid URLs, whether it returns any value, or any other side effects. This is insufficient for a parsing tool with no annotation safety hints.

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 a single, terse sentence with no redundant words. It is efficient and front-loaded with the core action. However, it is so minimal that it omits essential context, but for conciseness alone it earns a strong 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 description is drastically incomplete for a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema. It does not explain why the schema includes unrelated parameters (city, feed, json, etc.), what the tool returns, or any constraints. An agent would have no idea which parameters to pass or what to expect. This is far below the minimum viable level.

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 input schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the schema itself documents each parameter. The description adds no extra meaning about parameters—it does not clarify which parameters are relevant to Figma URL parsing or note that many are ignored. Since coverage is high, the baseline of 3 is appropriate, but the description offers no added value.

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 clearly identifies the tool as parsing a Figma file URL and discarding the path. This is a specific verb and resource, and the name reinforces the purpose. However, it does not explain what 'parse' entails (validation, extraction, normalization) nor how it differs from sibling URL tools like normalize-url or browser-url-ok, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent would have to infer from the name and the schema which tool to select, which is inadequate given the many sibling shape-checking tools.

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