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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses 'Path discarded' which is one behavioral trait, but it ignores the other eight parameters entirely. The description implies the tool only handles Figma URLs while the schema accepts unrelated fields, creating confusion about what actually happens. No side effects, return format, or error behavior are mentioned.

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 (one sentence), but that brevity comes at the cost of essential information. It is under-specified for a tool with 9 parameters and no annotations. It is not appropriately sized for the tool's 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?

For a tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior with the other parameters, what it returns, or any constraints. An agent has almost no information to correctly invoke this tool 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description, but the tool description adds minimal value. It doesn't clarify that the other parameters (city, feed, json, etc.) are irrelevant to the primary purpose or how they interact with the URL parsing. The 'Path discarded' note is ambiguous—does it refer to the URL path or the 'path' parameter? This lack of clarity makes the description misleading.

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 verb and resource: 'Parse a Figma file URL'. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like normalize-url by targeting Figma URLs specifically. However, it doesn't mention what 'parse' returns or how it relates to the other schema fields, so it's not fully clear.

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. It doesn't say 'use for Figma URL validation' or 'for general URLs use normalize-url'. The description is purely functional with no contextual direction.

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