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

The only disclosed behavior is 'Path discarded,' which is vague and does not map clearly to any specific parameter. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it fails to explain side effects, return values, or how the tool handles its nine optional parameters. The minimal disclosure is insufficient for an agent to predict behavior.

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 and front-loaded with the main purpose, which is good for structure. However, it is too brief for a tool with nine parameters and no output schema. The single sentence omits essential context that would help an agent use the tool correctly, so while it is efficient, it is not appropriately sized for the complexity.

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 the tool's complexity (9 optional parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. An agent cannot determine what the tool returns, how it handles the various inputs, or when to use it. The description does not even mention the output format or the relationship between the URL and the other parameters, making it inadequate for correct invocation.

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 each parameter has a description, but the tool description adds no clarification about the parameters. It does not indicate that only the 'url' parameter is relevant, nor does it explain the purpose of the other eight parameters. The 'Path discarded' comment does not align with the 'path' parameter's description (which is about a file path, not a URL path), leaving the parameter semantics confusing.

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 ('Parse') on a specific resource ('Figma file URL'), which is clear at a basic level. However, it does not differentiate from sibling shape tools like domain-shape or github-repo-shape, and the input schema includes many unrelated parameters (city, feed, json, etc.), creating confusion about the actual scope. The phrase 'Path discarded' adds minor specificity but does not clarify what the tool actually returns or how it relates to its siblings.

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 alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools. An agent has no basis to decide between figma-url-shape and other shape-checking tools.

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