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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses only that the path is discarded, but says nothing about whether the operation is read-only, what side effects exist, what is returned, or whether any parameters are ignored vs used. This is minimal behavioral disclosure for a tool with no annotation safety net.

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 (two sentences), which is concise, but for a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. Every word earns its place, but crucial information is omitted, so it fails to be appropriately sized.

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?

Given 9 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a vague two-sentence description, the definition is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the tool actually does with the parameters, what the expected input format is, what the return value looks like, or how to interpret the 'shape check' behavior. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly.

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 each parameter has its own description, which raises the baseline to 3. However, the tool description adds nothing about how these parameters relate to Figma URL parsing; it only mentions the URL and path implicitly. The parameter descriptions themselves are clear but appear disconnected from the stated purpose, and the description does not help map them to expected usage.

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?

States a specific verb ('Parse') and resource ('Figma file URL'), and adds a behavioral note about the path being discarded. However, it does not explain what 'parse' yields (e.g., extracted components, validation result), and the 9-parameter schema includes many unrelated fields (city, feed, json) that muddy the tool's actual purpose. The clarity is acceptable but far from precise.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like normalize-url, browser-url-ok, or domain-shape. There is no mention of conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent has no idea when to select figma-url-shape over siblings.

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