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

With no annotations, the description is the only source of behavioral disclosure. It volunteers one useful trait ('Path discarded'), but it does not say whether the operation is a pure local parse, whether it makes network calls, what happens with an invalid Figma URL, or what output is produced. 'Parse' implies read-only, but that is not explicit.

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 short and front-loaded, with no filler; every word contributes. It earns high marks for conciseness, though the terse sentence fragment 'Path discarded' could be integrated into a fuller, still concise explanation.

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 nine parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and many closely related sibling shape/URL tools, one sentence is not enough. The description omits which parameter carries the Figma URL, what the tool returns, and how it differs from normalize-url or browser-url-ok, so an agent cannot reliably invoke it.

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?

Although the schema has 100% description coverage, its nine optional string properties look like a generic union of sibling-tool parameters (city, feed, host, json, zone, query) and none is explicitly a Figma file URL. The description does not tell the agent which field to populate; 'url' is described only as an HTTPS URL to normalize or cite, and the 'path' property refers to a file path, not a URL path. This ambiguity outweighs the high schema coverage.

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 and resource ('Parse a Figma file URL') and adds a behavioral note ('Path discarded'), so an agent can tell it is Figma-specific rather than a generic URL tool. It does not, however, state what the parsed result is or contrast it with sibling tools like normalize-url or browser-url-ok, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as domain-shape, github-repo-shape, normalize-url, or browser-url-ok. The description gives no conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites, so an agent has to infer suitability 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.