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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It only adds 'Path discarded' and does not state whether output is a boolean, normalized URL, or parsed components, nor any error or side-effect behavior. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation safety net.

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-loads the main purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence is a deliberate behavior note, but the terseness leaves important context (input selection, output) unstated.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns and how to invoke it correctly across the 9-parameter schema. It gives only the core purpose plus one discard detail, which is not enough to resolve the ambiguity introduced by the broad input schema.

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?

All 9 parameters are already described in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds only a path-discard note, and it does not identify the `url` parameter as the primary input or clarify why unrelated parameters such as `city` and `feed` exist.

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 action ('Parse') and a specific input type ('a Figma file URL'), which distinguishes it from sibling shape tools like github-repo-shape or domain-shape. However, it does not say what 'parse' produces or how 'Path discarded' relates to the result, so the purpose is clear only at a high level.

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?

The phrase 'Parse a Figma file URL' implies the tool is for Figma URL strings, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusion of alternatives such as normalize-url, browser-url-ok, or other shape checkers. No alternatives are named, leaving the choice to inference.

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