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

With no annotations, the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'Path discarded,' which is cryptic—it could refer to the URL path or the 'path' parameter. It does not disclose what the tool returns, how it validates, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotations.

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) and front-loads the purpose, but it is under-specified. It omits critical information that an agent needs, such as what constitutes a valid Figma URL and how other parameters behave. The brevity does not serve completeness; it feels like a placeholder rather than a polished, efficient description.

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 the tool's apparent complexity—9 parameters, many seemingly unrelated to Figma URLs—and the absence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how the parameters interact, what the tool returns, or which parameter is the input. The mismatch between the description and the parameter list is a notable gap that leaves an agent guessing.

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 covers all 9 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific meaning; it does not even identify which parameter is the Figma URL. It relies entirely on the schema, which is adequate but does not clarify the relationship between the described behavior and the parameters.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Parse a Figma file URL.' It distinguishes from sibling shape-check tools by targeting Figma URLs specifically. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like browser-url-ok or domain-shape, and the phrase 'Path discarded' adds ambiguity rather than clarity.

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 other shape-checking tools. There is no mention of alternatives, exclusions, or conditions that would select this tool over siblings. The only implicit hint is the 'Figma' specificity, but that is not made explicit as a decision rule.

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