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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Parse a Figma file URL' implies an action, and 'Path discarded' hints at behavior, but there is no disclosure of return format, error handling, or side effects. It is unclear whether the tool returns a boolean, a normalized URL, or something else. This is minimal and leaves critical operational details to inference.

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 sentences with no filler; the core action is front-loaded. However, the extreme brevity borders on under-specification rather than genuine conciseness. It earns points for efficiency but loses some for omitting necessary context.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is far too thin. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to interpret the result, or what 'discarded' means. The confusing multi-parameter schema compounds the gap, leaving an agent without enough information to call the tool correctly and confidently.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds no parameter guidance. More critically, the schema lists nine unrelated parameters (city, feed, json, etc.) that have nothing to do with Figma URLs. The description fails to clarify that only 'url' is relevant, leaving an agent unsure which parameters to supply. This confusion outweighs the baseline benefit.

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'), which distinguishes it from generic URL tools like normalize-url and browser-url-ok. However, 'Path discarded' is ambiguous—does it mean the path is ignored during validation or stripped from output? It's clear enough that the tool handles Figma URLs, but the exact purpose (validation vs extraction) is under-specified.

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 siblings. The description does not mention conditions, alternatives, or exclusions. Given the many shape-checker siblings (domain-shape, file-path-ok, github-repo-shape), an agent would have to infer that this tool is for Figma URLs from the name alone, with no explicit routing help.

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