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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it only mentions 'Path discarded.' It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what it returns (e.g., a boolean, extracted parts, or an error), or how it handles invalid inputs. The presence of unrelated parameters (city, feed, json) suggests a broader shape-checking role that the description fails to acknowledge, which could mislead an agent.

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 non-redundant, but it is too sparse for a tool with nine parameters and no annotations. The main purpose is front-loaded, yet essential details (like what the tool returns or how to use it) are omitted. It is not verbose, but it lacks structure and completeness.

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 (nine parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, usage conditions, or the role of each parameter. The tool appears to be a generic shape-checker based on the schema, but the description claims only Figma URL parsing, leaving an agent without enough information to invoke it 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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description, but the tool description does not explain how the parameters relate to the stated purpose of parsing a Figma URL. The inclusion of parameters like city, feed, and zone suggests the tool may check multiple input shapes, contradicting the narrow 'Figma file URL' focus. This mismatch undermines clarity and leaves the agent to guess which parameters are relevant.

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 ('Parse') and resource ('Figma file URL'), which is clear. However, 'parse' is vague—it could mean validate, extract components, or normalize—and it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like normalize-url or browser-url-ok. The added 'Path discarded' hints at behavior but doesn't clarify the tool's overall purpose.

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 is implied it handles Figma URLs, but there is no mention of when not to use it or what distinguishes it from similar URL-handling tools. The description does not state any prerequisites or conditions.

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