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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and only discloses 'Path discarded.' It does not say whether the operation is read-only, whether it validates or normalizes the URL, whether it makes an external request, or what happens for malformed input. The one disclosed behavior is helpful but severely incomplete.

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?

Both sentences are short and front-loaded: purpose first, then the path-discarding behavior. There is no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 optional parameters and no output schema or annotations, this is insufficient. An agent still needs to know which parameter carries the Figma URL, what the return value looks like, and whether any of the other schema properties are relevant.

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 schema coverage is 100%, the schema's nine optional properties are a poor match for the description: there is no explicit link between 'Figma file URL' and the url field, and props like city, feed, json, zone, and query appear unrelated. The description does not compensate by identifying which parameter to pass, so an agent cannot confidently construct the invocation.

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 operation, 'Parse', and a specific resource, 'Figma file URL', which clearly separates it from sibling shape tools like github-repo-shape and jira-key-shape. It stops short of a 5 because it never says what a successful parse yields or what 'shape' validation entails.

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 intended context is only implied: if an agent has a Figma file URL, this tool is likely the right one. There is no explicit 'use this instead of...' or 'do not use for other URL types', though the resource phrase does provide a weak selection cue against the sibling shape tools.

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