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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Path discarded' hints that something is ignored, but it is ambiguous whether it means the URL path or the `path` input parameter. The description does not disclose whether the tool is purely local, what it returns, or what validation rules apply to Figma URLs.

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 free of filler, with the core action front-loaded. However, 'Path discarded' is terse to the point of ambiguity and could mislead an agent, so it does not earn a 5.

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?

This tool has 9 parameters, 0 required fields, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description is only two sentences. It does not explain how the Figma URL parsing relates to the unrelated parameters like city, feed, zone, and query, nor does it describe return values or invocation expectations. This is inadequate for an agent to confidently call the tool.

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%, and each parameter already has a one-line description, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning and fails to clarify which parameter should hold the Figma URL, but because the schema is self-documenting, the score remains at the baseline.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Parse a Figma file URL.' This makes the core purpose understandable and distinguishes it from generic URL tools. However, it does not mention the output or what 'shape' means, and it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling URL tools, so it stops short of 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?

There is no guidance about when to prefer this tool over siblings like normalize-url, browser-url-ok, or web-fetch. The description gives no context for selection and offers no exclusions, which is a meaningful gap given the large set of similar URL-oriented sibling tools.

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