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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses only that the path is discarded, leaving out side effects, required inputs, error behavior, or what constitutes a valid Figma URL. This is insufficient for a tool with 9 optional parameters.

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 sentences), which is concise but under-specified. It front-loads the primary purpose but omits essential context about usage and parameters. Conciseness alone doesn't compensate for the lack of structure needed for a tool with this complexity.

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 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, which parameters are relevant, how to construct a valid input, or any error conditions. An agent cannot reliably call this tool correctly.

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 every parameter has a textual description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline for high coverage. However, it doesn't explain which parameters are relevant to the primary 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 clearly states a specific verb ('Parse') and resource ('Figma file URL') and includes a key behavioral detail (path discarded). It distinguishes from sibling tools like normalize-url and browser-url-ok. However, it's terse and doesn't clarify what 'parse' produces or how the many schema parameters relate.

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. There is no context about typical use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description implies a specific input type but doesn't say when to choose it over other URL-handling tools.

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