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

The only disclosed behavior is that the path is discarded. There is no mention of return values, validation behavior, error handling, or read-only nature. With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden and leaves most behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 short and front-loaded with the main action, so it is concise in length. But the brevity omits essential information and the 'Path discarded' clause is cryptic without additional context, making the structure feel under-specified rather than efficiently complete.

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 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from sufficient. It does not explain what the tool returns, how the parameters are used, or what a valid call looks like, so an agent cannot confidently 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description, which establishes a baseline of 3. However, the tool description does not clarify which parameter holds the Figma URL or how the other eight parameters (ref, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) are involved, so it adds no semantic value beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific action on a specific resource type ('Parse a Figma file URL') and the tool name clearly ties it to the family of shape-checkers. The addition of 'Path discarded' hints at a behavioral nuance, though 'parse' is still somewhat ambiguous about whether it validates, extracts, or normalizes.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of siblings like normalize-url, browser-url-ok, github-repo-shape, or other URL-related tools. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are given.

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