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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention that the path is discarded, which is a useful behavioral note, but it says nothing about the other parameters—many of which also appear to be 'discarded' (e.g., 'ref' description says 'discarded after the shape check', 'json' says 'discarded after the check'). The description only discloses one discard while the schema implies others, creating an incomplete picture. It also doesn't state what the tool returns or what constitutes a successful parse.

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 (two sentences, nine words) with no fluff. It front-loads the main action and includes one key detail (path discarded). However, it is so brief that it sacrifices necessary information for conciseness. The structure is clean, but the brevity contributes to the lack of completeness.

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 has 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is grossly inadequate. It only addresses Figma URL parsing and discarding the path, but completely fails to explain the other parameters, the overall purpose (generic shape validation), expected return values, or error behavior. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool for non-Figma inputs or even fully understand the Figma case without guessing.

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 each parameter is documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it implies the 'url' parameter is the main input, but it doesn't elaborate on the meaning or relationship of the other eight parameters. Since the schema already fully describes each parameter, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, but the description could have clarified that this is a multi-purpose shape checker rather than focusing solely on Figma.

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 'Parse a Figma file URL. Path discarded.' which gives a specific verb and resource, but the input schema reveals 9 unrelated parameters (ref, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) that have nothing to do with Figma URLs. This suggests the tool is actually a generic shape-checker for many input types, but the description misleadingly narrows its scope to Figma alone. An agent reading this would be confused about what the tool actually does beyond the Figma case.

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 shape-check tools (e.g., domain-shape, github-repo-shape, jira-key-shape). The description does not mention alternatives, conditions for selection, or any context like 'Use this to validate Figma URL format.' It leaves the agent to infer usage from the name and description, which is insufficient given the broad schema.

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