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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior, but it only says 'Path discarded.' It does not disclose what parsing or shape validation actually does, whether any network access occurs, what the return value looks like, or what happens when the URL is invalid. Some behavior is disclosed, but too little for a tool with this complexity.

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 only two sentences and puts the primary purpose first. It is efficient and free of filler, though it is arguably too terse for the tool's complexity. As pure conciseness, it earns a strong score.

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?

Given nine parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is not complete enough for an agent to reliably select the correct input field or understand the tool's behavior. It does not explain which parameter is the operative one, what the tool returns, or what validation is performed, leaving too much to inference.

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 all nine parameters are already individually documented. The description adds minimal value by clarifying that the URL is a Figma URL and that the path is discarded, though this partially duplicates the schema's path description. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Parse a Figma file URL.' This clearly indicates the tool's scope and sets it apart from generic URL tools by naming Figma specifically. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling shape-checking tools like github-repo-shape or jira-key-shape, so it misses the top score.

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 use this tool versus alternatives such as normalize-url, web-fetch, or browser-url-ok. The description implies use for Figma URLs but provides no exclusions, no prerequisites, and no context for choosing it over other shape-check tools.

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