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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the path is discarded, but does not state what the tool returns, whether it validates the URL format, or what happens with the other eight parameters. The schema descriptions mention 'discarded after' for several, but that is not in the tool description itself, so the agent is left without behavioral expectations.

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 clauses, and front-loads the main verb. However, for a tool with nine parameters and no output schema, this brevity is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It lacks structure to guide the agent on how to use the parameters, making it 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 (nine parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It only addresses Figma URLs, ignoring the other parameter types, and does not explain return values or side effects. An agent cannot confidently invoke this tool based on the description alone.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it does not even indicate which parameter is the primary input (presumably 'url'). No extra value is added beyond the schema.

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'. However, the input schema includes nine unrelated parameters (city, feed, host, json, zone, etc.) that have no obvious connection to Figma URLs, creating confusion about the tool's actual scope. It does not distinguish from sibling shape-checkers like domain-shape or github-repo-shape, making the purpose less clear than it appears.

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 alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools such as normalize-url or browser-url-ok. An agent cannot determine if this is the right tool for a given URL without additional context.

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