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 only states 'Path discarded,' which is a minor behavioral detail, but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what it returns, error behavior, or any side effects. For a tool that presumably checks URL shape, the lack of return-value information is a significant gap.

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 short—two fragments—but it is under-specified rather than concise. It does not front-load key information like expected inputs or outputs. Every word is wasted because it conveys almost nothing actionable. A good concise description would still be informative; this is merely sparse.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 9 parameters, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, what conditions trigger success or failure, or how the parameters relate to the Figma URL parsing. An agent has almost no information to call it correctly. This is far below the minimum viable definition.

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?

While schema coverage is 100%, the description does not add meaning to the parameters. It mentions 'Figma file URL' but does not specify which of the 9 parameters corresponds to that URL (presumably 'url' but the schema describes it as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite,' which is generic). The other parameters (ref, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) appear unrelated to Figma, creating confusion. The description fails to clarify parameter roles or how they map to the tool's purpose.

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 resource ('Figma file URL'), which distinguishes it from generic URL tools, but it is vague about the outcome—what does parsing return? It also doesn't clarify how it differs from siblings like 'normalize-url' or 'browser-url-ok' beyond the Figma specificity. The phrase 'Path discarded' hints at behavior but leaves the main purpose unclear.

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 when to prefer it over sibling URL-shape tools, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description offers zero context for an agent to decide when this is the right tool.

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