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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that 'Path discarded', which is a minor side effect, but it fails to disclose whether the tool makes network calls, what it returns (e.g., a boolean, a normalized URL), or how it handles malformed input. For a tool that likely just checks URL format, this is a significant gap.

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 a single sentence with no filler, making it efficient. However, it is so brief that it omits essential information, so while it is concise in size, it under-delivers on content. The structure is front-loaded with the core purpose, which is good, but the lack of detail prevents a higher 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 the tool has 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is drastically incomplete. It doesn't explain the expected return value, how to interpret the result, or how to handle the unrelated parameters. An agent cannot confidently call this tool without additional context, making it a poorly defined utility.

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?

The schema lists 9 parameters, but only 'url' seems relevant to a Figma URL parser. The description doesn't clarify that the other 8 parameters (ref, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) are ignored or what role they play. Although schema coverage is 100%, each parameter's description is generic and not tied to the tool's actual function. The description adds no value beyond the schema and fails to explain why so many unrelated parameters exist, leaving the agent confused about which to populate.

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 action: 'Parse a Figma file URL' – a specific verb and resource that distinguishes it from sibling shape tools like domain-shape or jira-key-shape. However, 'parse' is vague; it doesn't specify whether it validates, extracts, or transforms the URL, so the purpose is clear in scope but not in behavior.

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 on when to use this tool versus other shape validators. The name implies it's for Figma URLs, but the description doesn't state conditions like 'use when you need to check if a URL is a valid Figma file link' or contrast it with normalize-url or browser-url-ok. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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