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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It only says 'Parse a Figma file URL. Path discarded,' without disclosing whether the tool is read-only, what shape it validates, whether it makes network requests, or what it returns. The path-discarding note is the only behavioral detail, and it is ambiguous.

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 appropriately short and front-loaded, with the core verb/object in the first sentence and only one additional clarifying fragment. The brevity is efficient, but the 'Path discarded' fragment is cryptic and slightly reduces clarity.

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 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a two-sentence description is insufficient. It does not state the return value, the specific Figma URL shape being checked, or whether only the 'url' parameter is used. An agent would struggle to invoke this correctly or distinguish its output from similar URL tools.

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 the baseline is 3 even without parameter details in the tool description. The description adds a little emphasis on 'Path discarded,' which reinforces the 'path' parameter's schema description, but it does not clarify which of the many optional parameters actually matter or how they relate to a Figma URL.

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 action ('Parse') and resource ('a Figma file URL'), which clearly identifies the tool's domain and distinguishes it from sibling shape-checking tools like github-repo-shape or jira-key-shape. The phrase 'Path discarded' adds behavioral detail, though it is ambiguous about whether it means the URL path or the 'path' parameter.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternatives are named. The intended use is implied by 'Figma file URL' and the sibling tool names, but there is no guidance on choosing this over normalize-url or browser-url-ok.

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