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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full disclosure burden and offers only one behavioral trait ('Path discarded.'), which is itself ambiguous between the URL's path and the 'path' parameter. The description conflicts with the schema: it says 'Figma file URL' while the url parameter is generically described as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', and 8 unrelated parameters (city, feed, json, zone, query...) appear without explanation. It never states the return value or that this is a local shape check.

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 two short sentences are front-loaded and free of padding, but this is under-specification, not coniseness: for a 9-param tool with no annotations and no output schema, 8 words cannot cover the ground. The cryptic fragment 'Path discarded.' raises ambiguity rather than resolving it, so neither sentence fully earns its place.

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 9 parameters, zero required, no annotations, no output schema, and a 26-tool sibling list full of URL and shape tools, the description is severely inadequate. An agent cannot determine what a valid Figma file URL looks like, what the tool returns, how it differs from normalize-url or browser-url-ok, or which parameters apply to the stated purpose.

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?

Despite 100% schema description coverage (baseline 3), the description actively misaligns with the schema: it names a Figma-file URL use case while the url parameter is described generically, and no parameter is identified as the one to pass for that use case. With all 9 parameters optional and no required ones, the description offers zero help in choosing among city, feed, json, zone, query, and the rest.

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 names a verb and resource ('Parse a Figma file URL'), which goes beyond a pure tautology of the tool name, but 'parse' is ambiguous — it doesn't say whether the tool validates URL shape, extracts components, or normalizes. 'Path discarded' raises questions (which path? discarded from what?) rather than clarifying scope, and no differentiation from sibling *-shape tools is offered.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus any of its 26 siblings, particularly the closely related normalize-url, browser-url-ok, and github-repo-shape. There is also no indication of which of the 9 optional parameters (all unrequired) an agent should supply for a Figma-file-url check.

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