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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only reveals that the path is discarded; it doesn't disclose read-only behavior, return format, error handling, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool that parses external 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 extremely short, which is good for conciseness, but it sacrifices necessary content. It's under-specified rather than appropriately concise, with only two brief clauses.

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 and no annotations or output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, usage context, or how to invoke it correctly, leaving an agent without essential information.

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 parameters are documented, but the description doesn't clarify which parameter is the Figma URL or how the other 8 parameters relate to Figma parsing. The description's focus on Figma conflicts with the broad parameter set (city, feed, json, zone, etc.), making it unclear what to pass.

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 verb ('Parse') and resource ('Figma file URL'), and notes the path is discarded. However, it doesn't specify the outcome (validation, normalization, etc.) or explicitly differentiate from sibling shape tools like domain-shape or github-repo-shape, so it's clear but not fully distinguishing.

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 the many sibling shape tools, nor any conditions or exclusions. An agent has no basis to select this tool over alternatives.

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