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

Annotations are completely absent, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only states that a path is discarded, and does not clarify whether this is read-only, what it returns, or what happens to other inputs.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main purpose. There is no wasted wording, though it is sparse enough that the second sentence adds more ambiguity than useful context.

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 annotations, and no output schema, a two-sentence description is not sufficient. It does not indicate which parameters are relevant, what a successful parse yields, or how this relates to other shape/validator tools.

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 explains each parameter. The description adds 'Path discarded' but does not materially clarify how the 9 parameters relate to Figma URL parsing.

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 concrete action and resource: 'Parse a Figma file URL.' That is enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like github-repo-shape or jira-key-shape, though the phrase 'Path discarded.' is ambiguous and no explicit differentiation is given.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of required conditions. The only implied usage is 'when you have a Figma file URL,' but the description does not give enough for an agent to route reliably.

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