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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior, but it only mentions that the path is discarded. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what it returns, or what happens with malformed URLs.

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 very concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, 'Path discarded' is so terse that it creates ambiguity, preventing a perfect score.

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?

The description is far too incomplete for a tool with nine optional parameters and no output schema. It does not explain the expected input URL format, the return structure, or which parameters matter, leaving an agent unable to call it confidently.

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 descriptions cover all parameters, several appear unrelated to Figma URLs (city, feed, host, zone, etc.), and the tool description adds no clarification. The description does not help an agent understand which of the nine optional fields are actually relevant.

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 action ('Parse') and resource ('Figma file URL'), which distinguishes it from sibling shape-checking tools. However, 'Path discarded' is ambiguous—it is unclear whether the path is an input to ignore or an output component that is removed.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of the many sibling shape/URL tools. The description does not specify conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives.

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