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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it only reveals that the path is discarded. It does not state whether the tool fetches the URL, performs a pure shape check, returns a boolean or parsed object, or what happens on invalid input, leaving an agent to guess the call's effects.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by a behavioral note. Every word earns its place; there is no repetition of the tool name and no filler.

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 a successful parse looks like, whether this is a shape validation, or which of the many optional parameters are relevant. A one-line parse instruction is insufficient for an agent to predict the tool's behavior and result.

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 each parameter already has its own prose in the schema; the description need not repeat them. It adds minimal value by clarifying that parsing applies to a Figma file URL and that path is discarded, but it does not explain how the nine optional parameters interact or which fields are meaningful.

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 gives a specific verb ('Parse') and resource ('Figma file URL'), so the core purpose is clear and distinct from sibling shape tools like github-repo-shape or domain-shape. It falls short of 5 because 'Parse' does not explicitly say 'validate shape' or specify the return, and 'Path discarded' is ambiguous about whether it refers to 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?

The instruction to parse a Figma file URL provides clear context for when to call this tool, and 'Path discarded' adds a scoping note about path handling. It does not name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the resource-specific phrasing makes the primary use case evident.

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