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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure, but it only states 'Path discarded.' It does not mention whether the tool validates, extracts, returns anything, requires authentication, or has side effects. The parameter descriptions say fields are 'discarded after the shape check,' but what a 'shape check' does is never explained.

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 (two sentences) and has no wasted words, but the second sentence 'Path discarded' is cryptic and does not clarify the tool's behavior. It is concise but not effectively structured, as it omits essential context while including a confusing detail.

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 nine parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to use it, what the primary input is, or what constitutes a valid Figma URL. The sibling tools suggest a shape-checking pattern, but nothing here tells the agent how to call it correctly.

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. The tool description adds no meaning beyond the schema; it does not clarify which parameter is the primary input (likely 'url') or how the others relate to Figma. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema handles the documentation, but the description does not compensate for the confusion created by the extraneous parameters.

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 and resource ('Parse a Figma file URL'), but it is vague about what 'parse' means and what is returned. The nine unrelated parameters (ref, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) and the cryptic 'Path discarded' add confusion, making the actual function unclear. It does not distinguish from siblings like normalize-url or browser-url-ok.

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 any alternative. No mention of conditions, exclusions, or related sibling tools. The description gives the agent no basis for selecting it over other URL or shape-checking tools.

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