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

The description adds one behavior note, 'Path discarded,' but with no annotations it carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explain return format, failure behavior, whether network access occurs, or what 'path' refers to relative to the schema's own 'path' parameter.

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 short and front-loaded with no filler, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently complete. Two terse sentences do not earn high marks for structure when more needed context is absent.

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?

Given nine optional parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a generic input schema, this one-line description is not complete enough for an agent to confidently invoke the tool. The agent must guess the expected input mapping, return value, and behavior.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds little parameter-level meaning and doesn't clarify which of the nine generic schema parameters is the Figma URL, though it presumably points to 'url'. This ambiguity prevents a higher score.

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 action and resource: 'Parse a Figma file URL.' This is more than a tautology and gives the agent a reasonable idea of the tool's scope. However, it doesn't specify what the parse result looks like or explicitly distinguish it from sibling shape/URL tools.

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 versus alternatives like domain-shape, github-repo-shape, normalize-url, or browser-url-ok. There are no conditions, exclusions, or sibling references to help with tool selection.

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