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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says 'Path discarded' but does not explain what happens to the other parameters (e.g., city, feed, json, zone, query) which are described in the schema as 'discarded after the check' or 'discarded after the call'. The description does not disclose whether the tool performs network access, validation, or just shape checking. It also doesn't mention that it accepts many unrelated input types, which is a significant behavioral trait.

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 (one sentence), which is concise, but it is under-specified. It front-loads the main action but omits critical context about the tool's multi-parameter nature. The brevity is not effective because it leaves the agent with a misleading impression of the tool's purpose.

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 the tool has 9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a description that only mentions Figma URLs, the description is incomplete. An agent cannot determine what the tool does with the other 8 parameters, whether it performs network calls, or what the return value looks like. The sibling list includes many similar shape-checking tools (domain-shape, github-repo-shape, jira-key-shape, proto-ok, wiki-title-ok), and this description does not differentiate figma-url-shape from them.

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 the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the name 'figma-url-shape' and the phrase 'Path discarded.' It does not explain how the 'url' parameter relates to Figma or how the other parameters are used. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema covers all parameters, but the description fails to clarify the tool's actual scope.

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 says 'Parse a Figma file URL. Path discarded.' This states a verb and resource, but the input schema contains 9 unrelated parameters (city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) with no mention of them in the description. The tool name suggests a Figma URL shape checker, but the schema suggests a generic multi-purpose validator. The description is too narrow and fails to clarify what the tool actually does with all these parameters.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus siblings like browser-url-ok, normalize-url, or domain-shape. The description does not mention alternatives or exclusions. The presence of many unrelated parameters suggests the tool may be a generic shape-checker, but the description only mentions Figma URLs, leaving the agent confused about when to use it for other inputs.

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