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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The only behavior disclosed is that the path is discarded; it does not mention whether the tool performs network access, validates the URL, or what happens with the other eight parameters. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation fallback.

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 and front-loaded, with no filler. It earns its place, though the trade-off is that critical contextual information is missing; this is effective conciseness but not comprehensive.

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 complexity of a 9-parameter schema, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is underdeveloped. It does not explain the tool's behavior comprehensively, does not state return values, and leaves the agent to make sense of why unrelated inputs are accepted. For a tools with nine parameters, this is not enough to be confidently used effectively.

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 of the 9 parameters has a description. The tool description's 'Path discarded' note adds slight value beyond the schema by hinting at URL path handling, but it does not explain the relationship between the Figma URL intent and the many unrelated parameters, nor does it clarify which parameters are relevant for a typical call.

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 uses a specific verb+resource, 'Parse a Figma file URL,' which clearly distinguishes it from generic URL tools like normalize-url. The note 'Path discarded' adds a small behavioral hint, but it does not state what the parse returns or what constitutes a valid Figma URL shape, so it is not a 5.

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?

The description implies usage when a Figma file URL needs parsing, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as normalize-url, web-fetch, or file-path-ok. No exclusions or 'when-not' guidance is given, leaving the agent to infer selection from the name alone.

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