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 disclosing behavior. It only mentions that the path is discarded, which is a minor detail, and does not explain what 'parsing' entails, what happens for invalid URLs, whether it returns a boolean or normalized string, or any side effects. The description is far too sparse for a tool with no annotation support.

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 concise, with only two short sentences. It is front-loaded with the primary action and wastes no words. However, the brevity borders on under-specification, but for the dimension of conciseness, it earns a 4 for efficiency.

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 tool has 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides almost no context about what the tool returns, what constitutes a valid Figma URL, or how the parameters are used. It is far from complete for an agent to call it correctly without guessing. The tool is a shape checker, but the description does not even say it validates or returns a boolean.

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 all nine parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no value beyond the schema; it does not clarify which parameters are relevant to Figma URL parsing or how they interact. The 'Path discarded' note might even be misinterpreted as referring to the 'path' parameter, but that parameter's schema describes a file path, not a URL path. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already covers the parameters.

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 ('Parse') and resource ('Figma file URL'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling shape checkers like 'github-repo-shape' or 'jira-key-shape'. However, 'parse' is ambiguous – it could mean validate, extract, or normalize, and the second sentence 'Path discarded' is unclear about whether it refers to the URL path or the 'path' 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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling shape-checking tools (e.g., domain-shape, github-repo-shape, wiki-title-ok). It does not state any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the tool's purpose from its name alone.

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