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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, but it only says 'Path discarded.' It does not disclose that the tool appears to be a shape check rather than a fetch, what side effects exist, or what the return value is. The schema hints at discard behavior for several params, but the description itself is nearly silent.

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 with no wasted words, and the main action is front-loaded. However, the second sentence is cryptic and omits essential context, so brevity comes at the cost of clarity.

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?

For a tool with nine optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain which parameter to pass, what the tool returns, or why unrelated parameters exist, so an agent cannot reliably invoke it.

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, earning a baseline of 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning and does not indicate that 'url' is the relevant field for a Figma URL, leaving the mapping between the stated purpose and the schema implicit.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Parse a Figma file URL'), but the second sentence 'Path discarded' is ambiguous and the input schema exposes nine unrelated optional parameters (ref, city, feed, json, zone, query) with no Figma-specific field. This mismatch makes the tool's actual purpose unclear despite the specific phrasing.

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 instead of siblings like normalize-url, browser-url-ok, or github-repo-shape. The description does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or context, so an agent has no basis for selecting this tool over others.

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