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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only mentions 'Path discarded,' which is ambiguous and does not clarify what happens to other inputs or what the tool returns. The schema parameter descriptions (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check') provide more behavioral detail than the main description, but the description itself is sparse.

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 a single sentence, which is concise, but it sacrifices necessary detail. It omits the tool's multi-parameter nature and any behavioral caveats, making it under-specified rather than appropriately concise.

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 9 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool checks, what it returns, or how it handles the varied inputs. An agent cannot reliably determine how to call 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?

The description adds no parameter-level meaning; it does not even acknowledge the existence of multiple parameters. While the schema descriptions are thorough (100% coverage), the description's singular focus on a Figma URL misrepresents the tool's actual interface, potentially confusing an agent about which parameters to provide.

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 clear verb and resource ('Parse a Figma file URL'), but it fails to match the actual schema, which accepts 9 unrelated optional parameters (ref, city, feed, json, etc.). This narrow scope is misleading and does not distinguish the tool from siblings like domain-shape or github-repo-shape, which also validate specific shapes.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes many similar 'shape' tools, but the description offers no context for choosing figma-url-shape over them.

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