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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It only mentions 'Path discarded,' which is ambiguous and not enough. It doesn't state side effects, read-only nature, or what happens to inputs (many are 'discarded after check' per schema, but the description doesn't summarize this).

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 (one sentence), which is concise but under-specified. It lacks structure and doesn't front-load essential information like input requirements or output behavior. It's not appropriately sized for a 9-parameter tool.

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?

For a tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the purpose beyond a vague parse action, doesn't mention return values, usage context, or any constraints, making it nearly useless for an agent.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are documented individually. The description adds a specific Figma URL context, but it conflicts with the generic 'normalize or cite' description for the url parameter and introduces a 'path' note that seems unrelated. It adds some value but also confusion.

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 'Parse a Figma file URL' with a specific resource, but 'Path discarded' is cryptic and the tool name suggests shape-checking. It fails to clarify what 'parse' means (extract? validate?) and doesn't distinguish from siblings 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides no context about selection criteria or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer entirely.

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