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, but does not state validation behavior, return format, side effects, or what happens with invalid URLs. This is insufficient for an unannotated tool.

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 brief and front-loaded, which is good for conciseness, but it sacrifices essential context. It is not verbose, but it omits critical information needed to understand the tool's scope and usage.

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?

A tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations requires a thorough description to be usable. This one-sentence description fails to explain the role of most parameters, the expected output, or how this tool fits among its many siblings. It is completely inadequate for an agent to call 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?

The schema documents all 9 parameters, but the tool description does not explain how these parameters relate to parsing a Figma URL. Many parameters (city, feed, json, zone, query) appear unrelated, and the description adds no meaning beyond the schema, leaving agents uncertain about which parameters are actually relevant.

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 states the action (parse) and the resource (a Figma file URL), and notes that the path is discarded. This distinguishes it from URL normalization or fetching tools like normalize-url or browser-url-ok.

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. It does not mention sibling tools, exclusions, or conditions under which this tool is preferred over similar URL-handling tools.

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