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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that the path is discarded, which is a genuine behavioral detail, but it says nothing about validation behavior, return values, or how malformed URLs are handled. This is thin for a no-annotation tool.

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 terse sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place, even though the second sentence could be less ambiguous.

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 and no annotations, yet the description does not state what the parse result is or how the nine optional parameters are treated. An agent cannot confidently predict the tool's return value or know which parameters are required versus discarded.

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?

The input schema already documents all nine parameters with 100% coverage, so the description need not restate them. However, the description adds no clarification about which parameters are actually relevant for this tool versus which are ignored, and 'Path discarded' is ambiguous relative to the 'path' parameter.

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 names a specific verb ('Parse') and a specific resource ('a Figma file URL'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like github-repo-shape or jira-key-shape. It stops short of explaining what the parse produces, and 'Path discarded' is ambiguous, 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?

It gives a clear context: use this tool when a Figma file URL needs parsing, so an agent can route to it over other URL/shape tools. It does not mention explicit alternatives or when-not conditions, but the resource name is sufficiently clear for selection.

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