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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses one behavior ('Path discarded') but leaves other behaviors unexplained—such as how other parameters (city, feed, json, etc.) are handled. The tool's name suggests a shape check, but the description doesn't clarify the output or side effects.

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—two short sentences with no fluff, but it is under-specified for a tool with 9 parameters. It is not wasteful, but it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.

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's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema), the description is far from complete. It doesn't explain what 'parse' returns, how the URL is validated, or what happens to the other parameters. An agent would have little context to call it correctly beyond the schema.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all 9 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond noting the path is discarded, which is a marginal addition over the schema.

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 clear action ('Parse a Figma file URL') with a specific resource, which distinguishes it from generic URL tools. However, it does not reference sibling tools or conditions for selection, so it does not fully differentiate among the many URL-related siblings.

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 like normalize-url or browser-url-ok. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it or what inputs are appropriate beyond the URL.

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