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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure, and it does offer one trait: 'Path discarded' indicates some input/output component is ignored. It does not describe return values, error behavior, or side effects, but a parse operation can reasonably be inferred as non-mutating. The minimal disclosure keeps this at a middling score.

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?

Extremely concise and front-loaded, with no filler or repeated schema content. The two short sentences are easy to scan; though 'Path discarded' is ambiguous, the structural economy is a strength.

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 an agent, this description is incomplete: no output schema exists, so the return format must be described; it isn't. The 9-parameter schema is not explained, and there is no indication what 'shape' means or what happens with an invalid Figma URL. A tool this small can be fully specified in a sentence or two, and this does not achieve that.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some value by identifying the URL parameter as a Figma file URL, which the schema's generic 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite' does not. However, it does not clarify which of the nine optional parameters are actually needed or how the unrelated params (ref, city, feed, etc.) relate to the operation.

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?

States a specific action – parse a Figma file URL – which is a clear verb+resource. The phrase 'Path discarded' adds one behavioral detail, though the exact referent (URL path vs. path parameter) is ambiguous. It is not tautological and the Figma resource helps separate it from generic URL tools.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as normalize-url, browser-url-ok, or web-fetch. There is no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusion conditions; the only implied use case is 'when you have a Figma file URL to parse'.

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