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 'Path discarded' but does not explain the behavior for the other 8 parameters, nor the return value, side effects, or why a Figma URL parser accepts parameters like 'city' and 'feed'. This 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 concise at one sentence, which is efficient. However, it is under-specified and does not earn its brevity—it omits critical information about the parameter set and expected 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?

For a tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly inadequate. It does not explain the return format, how the URL is parsed, or the role of the majority of parameters. An agent cannot correctly invoke this tool based on the description alone.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, each with a clear one-liner. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema and does not clarify how parameters relate to the stated purpose. Baseline of 3 applies because the schema is sufficient, but the description adds no value.

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 action and resource: 'Parse a Figma file URL.' This is clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like normalize-url or browser-url-ok, and the input schema lists 9 unrelated parameters (city, feed, host, etc.) that are not explained, making the tool's actual scope ambiguous.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, conditions, or related tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and description alone.

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