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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it reveals only one trait: 'Path discarded.' It does not state validation semantics, the output format, error behavior, or how the 8 unrelated parameters (city, feed, json, zone, query) factor in. Parsing implies read-only intent, but that is implicit, not disclosed.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler: the core resource is front-loaded and the distinguishing behavioral caveat ('Path discarded') follows immediately. 'Path discarded' is a fragment, but it earns its place as the key scoping constraint.

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 a tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is far too thin. It doesn't explain what the parse returns, what constitutes a valid Figma URL, or how the unrelated parameters (ref, city, feed, host, json, zone, query) are handled, leaving the agent to infer nearly everything from schema descriptions 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%, so every parameter already has a description, meeting the baseline. The tool description adds essentially nothing about parameters and does not explicitly map 'Figma file URL' to the url parameter; there is also a subtle mismatch where url is generically described as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite' rather than as a Figma URL.

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') that aligns with the tool name and distinguishes it from sibling shape tools like github-repo-shape and jira-key-shape. The 'Path discarded' clause adds a scoping detail, though it is terse and doesn't clarify what the parse produces.

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 the many sibling URL/shape tools (browser-url-ok, normalize-url, github-repo-shape, file-path-ok), and no mention of which of the 9 parameters should hold the Figma URL. The only routing signal is the tool's name itself.

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