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

With no annotations, the description is the only source of behavior. It only mentions that a path is discarded; there is no indication of side effects, output, errors, network access, or read-only guarantees.

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 short and front-loaded, with no filler. The second sentence adds a behavioral detail, but it is terse to the point of ambiguity.

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?

The description is far from complete for a tool with nine varied parameters and no output schema. It never explains why city, feed, json, zone, query, etc. are accepted, what the parsed shape looks like, or what the caller should expect.

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter has a description, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds little to parameter meaning, and 'Path discarded' may confuse the separate 'path' parameter, but it does not override 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?

The description states the core task—parsing a Figma file URL—but never clarifies what 'shape' means or what result is returned. The nine unrelated parameters further blur the tool's intended purpose.

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 for when to use this tool instead of sibling tools such as normalize-url, browser-url-ok, or web-fetch. It does not mention any selection criteria or context.

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