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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the salient behavior: this is a non-converting inspection that previews the convert limit, and it is 'Free' (no credit consumption). It does not explicitly declare read-only/non-destructive status or how large the response can get; caching and token handling are covered only by the schema, not the prose.

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?

Two sentences with the verb and the non-conversion constraint front-loaded, followed by the concrete output inventory. The enumeration is long but every item is decision-relevant for choosing a frame; slightly denser than strictly necessary.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain the return value — and it does so item by item, including the convert-limit verdict and candidate frames that drive follow-up calls. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly and interpret the result is missing.

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 all five parameters (url, node, depth, refresh, figmaToken) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format meaning beyond hinting at the layer-tree depth and frame selection. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb ('Outline') and resource ('a Figma file or frame'), then enumerates exactly what comes back: layer tree, node count, text/image/vector counts, convert-limit status, and candidate child frames. The explicit 'WITHOUT converting' clause plus the named sibling convert_figma makes it distinguishable from its alternatives at a glance.

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?

Gives two concrete triggering conditions — the user supplies a whole-file link, or convert_figma reports a frame is too large — and implies the alternative (convert_figma) that should be used instead once the right frame is found. No inference required to decide when to call this.

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