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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that the path is discarded, but does not state what the tool returns, whether it validates, what errors may occur, or any side effects. For a tool with 9 parameters, this is grossly insufficient.

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 very concise, with two short sentences and no redundant phrasing. The main action is front-loaded. However, the extreme brevity sacrifices necessary detail, making it an under-specification rather than a model of conciseness.

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 the tool has 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far from complete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to construct the expected input, or why many parameters (city, feed, host, json, etc.) are present. An agent would struggle to invoke this tool correctly with only this description.

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, but the description adds no value beyond the schema. More critically, the schema's description of the 'url' parameter ('HTTPS URL to normalize or cite') conflicts with the tool's purpose of parsing a Figma file URL, creating semantic confusion. The tool description does not clarify which parameters are relevant or how they interact with the Figma URL parsing.

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 verb ('Parse') and a resource ('a Figma file URL'), which is clearer than a tautology. However, it does not explain what 'parse' yields (e.g., file key, validation result) and does not differentiate it from sibling URL tools like normalize-url or browser-url-ok, leaving ambiguity about its exact role.

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. With many siblings such as domain-shape, github-repo-shape, and normalize-url, the description provides no selection criteria or context for choosing this tool over others.

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