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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only says 'Parse a Figma file URL' and 'Path discarded' but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, whether it validates the URL syntax or fetches it, what it does with the other 8 schema parameters, or what the return value looks like. This is a significant transparency 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 exceptionally concise (two short sentences) and front-loads the core action. There is no fluff. However, it is so short that it borders on incomplete, but for conciseness alone it earns a 4.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain the purpose of the other parameters, the expected input format, any side effects, or the output shape. Essential information for correct invocation is entirely missing.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds no value beyond the schema. It only mentions 'URL', while the schema lists 9 independent parameters. The description fails to clarify whether the other parameters are used, ignored, or required, creating confusion instead of adding semantics.

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 specific action ('Parse a Figma file URL') and resource, which is clear and not a tautology. It also distinguishes from siblings like 'domain-shape' by naming Figma explicitly. However, the meaning of 'shape' and what parsing entails is left vague, and the note 'Path discarded' is ambiguous without further context.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of related tools, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description gives zero usage context.

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