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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden but only discloses that the path is discarded. It does not mention return format, validation behavior, error handling, or side effects.

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 very brief and free of filler, with each sentence contributing a fact. It is appropriately concise, though it could afford a bit more detail.

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, a one-line description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what output is produced, which parameters are relevant, or how errors are handled.

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?

Although the schema has 100% parameter description coverage, the tool description conflicts with schema wording: it calls url a Figma URL while the schema describes generic URL normalization, and it says path is discarded while the schema says path is checked. The description therefore confuses rather than clarifies parameter meaning.

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 the verb ('Parse') and the target ('a Figma file URL'), and notes a key behavior ('Path discarded'). It does not explain what the parsed result is or how 'shape' relates, but the core purpose is identifiable.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of the many sibling tools, such as normalize-url or web-fetch. No context or alternative selection criteria are given.

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