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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that the path is discarded, which is vague and potentially conflicts with the 'path' parameter in the schema. It does not describe what happens with other parameters, the return format, or any side effects.

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 a single sentence, making it concise and front-loaded. However, it lacks structure and essential details, such as how inputs are processed and what the output is, making it under-specified rather than efficiently informative.

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 annotations, and no output schema, this description is severely inadequate. It does not explain the tool's overall behavior, how each parameter is used, or what the tool returns, leaving an agent unable to call it 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?

The schema already documents each parameter with 100% coverage, so the description adds no extra semantics. Moreover, the focus on Figma URLs does not explain the presence of unrelated parameters like city, feed, zone, etc., which could mislead an agent about the tool's behavior.

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 purpose: 'Parse a Figma file URL' and notes that the path is discarded. However, the input schema includes 9 parameters, most unrelated to Figma URLs (city, feed, host, json, zone, query, etc.), creating ambiguity about the tool's actual scope. It does not clearly differentiate from sibling shape-checking tools like domain-shape or file-path-ok.

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. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate scenario.

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