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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the full burden. It only says 'path discarded,' which is a hint but not enough to disclose side effects, read-only behavior, error handling, or return values. It does not explain what the tool does with the URL or whether it modifies any state. The hint is ambiguous; it could mean the URL path component is ignored, or the 'path' parameter is ignored.

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 short and the main action is front-loaded, but the brevity is more under-specification than good conciseness. It lacks the necessary details to be a complete, reliable description, so it does not earn a high score on this dimension.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the agent needs a more detailed explanation of the return value, expected input format, and any edge cases. The description provides almost none of that; it is insufficient for safe and correct invocation.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds the import that the tool is about parsing a URL, implying the 'url' parameter is the primary input and potentially that paths are not used. However, it does not explicitly tie the description to the parameter names, and the ambiguity of 'path discarded' leaves room for confusion with the 'path' parameter in 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 brief statement 'Parse a Figma file URL. Path discarded.' does identify a resource (Figma file URL) and a verb ('parse'), but it doesn't explain what 'parse' yields or how it differs from the similar sibling tools like normalize-url or browser-url-ok. It's not a complete tautology, but it is vague about the tool's core behavior.

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 call this tool instead of a sibling, nor what conditions should hold (e.g., valid URL formation, required parameters). The description gives no use-case context, exclusion case, or alternative routing.

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