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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the path is discarded, which is useful, but it says nothing about side effects, return format, or the behavior of the many other parameters. The description is partially transparent but incomplete for a tool with 9 parameters.

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 concise at one sentence, with no fluff or redundancy. It front-loads the primary purpose. However, the brevity comes at the cost of omitting essential information, so while it is efficient, it is under-specified for the tool's complexity.

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 output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely inadequate. It fails to explain the purpose of the unrelated parameters, return values, or when to use the tool. The description covers only a fraction of the tool's apparent functionality, leaving the agent with insufficient context 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value by implying the 'url' parameter is the focus, but it does not explain the role of the other 8 parameters or how they interact. It neither compensates for schema gaps nor adds significant meaning.

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 clearly states the tool parses a Figma file URL and discards the path, which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling shape tools like domain-shape or jira-key-shape. However, the schema includes many unrelated parameters (city, feed, json, etc.) that are not explained by the description, creating ambiguity about the tool's actual scope.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as normalize-url, browser-url-ok, or other shape validators. It neither states when not to use it nor compares it to siblings, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria.

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