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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Path discarded.' It does not state whether the tool fetches the URL, returns a structured object, performs validation, or has side effects. The schema's many 'discarded' field descriptions hint at behavior, but the tool description itself is too thin.

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 and front-loaded, with both sentences contributing meaning. It earns its place as a concise summary, though it is terse enough that important context is left out.

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?

Despite the tool having nine generic parameters and no output schema, the description is too incomplete to support correct invocation. It does not explain what a 'shape' output looks like, which field is the Figma URL, or how the 'discarded' fields relate to the stated purpose.

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 the baseline is 3 and the schema already explains each parameter. The description adds little parameter meaning and does not clarify which parameter should receive the Figma file URL; the `url` parameter is described generically as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite.'

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 and resource: 'Parse a Figma file URL,' which clearly identifies the tool's target and distinguishes it from sibling URL/shape tools such as normalize-url or github-repo-shape. The added 'Path discarded' gives a specific scoping detail, though it is ambiguous whether it refers to the URL path or an input parameter.

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 implies a use case—when you have a Figma file URL to parse—but it gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives like normalize-url or other shape tools. It also does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or expected inputs beyond the URL.

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