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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Parse a Figma file URL. Path discarded.' It fails to say whether this is a read-only operation, whether it reaches out to Figma, what the output is, or how it behaves with other input parameters. The 'Path discarded' hint is too narrow and unexplained.

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 and front-loaded with the main purpose. The second sentence 'Path discarded.' is a compact behavioral note, though it is cryptic. It is not padded with filler, but it is so sparse it approaches under-specification.

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?

This is a function with nine optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not tell an agent what are the required inputs (e.g., 'url'), what conditionally to use the tool, or what the parse result looks like. With no way to understand the actual transformation, it is not complete enough for a correct call.

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 input schema documents all nine parameters at 100% coverage, so the description is not required to restate them. However, the description adds no value beyond the schema and the relationship between the parameters and a 'Figma file URL' is unclear; the baseline 3 is appropriate but the tool's odd, unrelated parameter list could use clarification.

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 verb ('Parse') and resource ('a Figma file URL'), so the basic purpose is identifiable. However, 'Path discarded' is ambiguous and the description does not distinguish this tool from siblings like domain-shape or github-repo-shape, nor does it clarify whether the tool validates the URL shape or extracts components.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The schema lists nine unrelated optional parameters with no instructions on which one is relevant for a Figma URL, and the description gives no exclusions, preconditions, or context.

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