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. It mentions 'Path discarded,' which hints at one behavior, but it does not explain the outcome of the parse, whether it returns a boolean, a normalized URL, or an error. It also fails to disclose that the tool appears to discard most of the provided parameters, as suggested by the schema descriptions.

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, which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise. It lacks structure and fails to front-load essential information about the tool's behavior or use cases.

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 nine parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly inadequate. It does not explain the return value, the relationship between parameters and purpose, or how to distinguish this tool from siblings. An agent cannot reliably call this tool based on the description alone.

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?

Although the schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no meaningful clarification about which parameter is actually used or how the parameters relate to the stated purpose. The schema lists parameters like 'city' and 'zone' that are unrelated to a Figma URL, and the description does not reconcile this, leaving the agent without guidance on what to pass.

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 verb and resource: 'Parse a Figma file URL.' This is more than a tautology, but it is vague about what 'shape' means and what the tool actually returns. It does not mention that the tool likely validates or normalizes the URL, and the schema with nine unrelated parameters creates confusion about the tool's true 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?

There is absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling URL-related tools (e.g., normalize-url, browser-url-ok, github-repo-shape). The description does not mention any conditions, alternatives, or exclusions.

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