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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It discloses only that the path is discarded. It doesn't state what happens on success or failure, whether the tool makes any network calls, whether it validates or merely extracts, or what a valid/invalid Figma URL looks like.

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 words. The description is appropriately compact for what it states, though the brevity is a symptom of under-specification rather than refined conciseness.

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?

A 9-parameter tool with no required parameters, no output schema, and only two sentences of description is grossly incomplete. An agent cannot determine which parameter to supply, what output to expect, how parameters interrelate, or why the schema contains parameters that appear to belong to other tools entirely (weather, timezone, RSS feeds).

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning; its sole behavioral note ('Path discarded') doesn't map cleanly to any of the 9 parameters. The schema descriptions themselves are generic ('HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', 'City name for a public weather hint'), and the description doesn't help an agent understand why 8 of 9 params exist on a tool named 'figma-url-shape'.

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), and the 'Path discarded' note hints at scope. However, it's extremely terse and the schema presents 9 unrelated optional parameters (city, feed, json, zone, query, etc.) that have no apparent connection to Figma URL parsing, creating confusion about the tool's true purpose.

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 on when to use this tool versus the many siblings (normalize-url, browser-url-ok, domain-shape, etc.). The description provides no context for selection, no exclusions, and no mention of what the 'shape check' is or when it's appropriate.

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