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. The only behavioral note is 'Path discarded,' which is cryptic and does not clarify what happens to the input, whether any external calls are made, what is returned, or side effects. It fails to disclose even the basic nature of the operation.

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 only one sentence, which is concise, but it is so under-specified that it lacks structure and substance. It is not front-loaded with useful context, and the cryptic 'Path discarded' phrase wastes the little space it uses. It reads more like an incomplete note than a structured tool definition.

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?

With nine optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is grossly inadequate. It does not explain what the tool does, what inputs it expects beyond the URL, what the return value looks like, or any constraints. An agent would be unable to correctly invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, giving a baseline of 3, but the schema descriptions themselves are generic and largely uninformative (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check'). The tool description adds nothing beyond the schema and does not explain how these parameters relate to the stated Figma URL parsing purpose. The mismatch between the description and the parameter set makes the parameters confusing rather than helpful.

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+resource ('Parse a Figma file URL'), which is a start, but it is extremely vague about what 'parse' entails and what the output is. The presence of nine unrelated parameters (city, feed, host, json, etc.) in the schema conflicts with the single-purpose description, leaving the tool's actual scope ambiguous. It does not differentiate from siblings like normalize-url or domain-shape.

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 conditions, exclusions, or alternative tools. The sibling list includes many URL/shape-related tools, but the description offers no routing information.

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