Get several nodes

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: partial-failure semantics (per-id failures reported per id rather than failing the whole call), which is exactly the kind of batch behavior an agent needs to plan around. It stops short of describing result shape or ordering.

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 compact sentences, zero filler, with the batch/round-trip purpose front-loaded and the failure-isolation behavior second. Every clause carries weight.

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 a read-only batch fetch with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: batch scope and isolated per-id error handling. What remains unstated is the return structure and ordering, but the partial-failure note is the critical piece for correct invocation.

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%, with nodeIds, depth, session, and includeGeometry all documented in-schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail (e.g. the 200-item limit, Figma-link acceptance) beyond what the schema already states.

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?

States the action relative to a named sibling ('the same as figma_get_node for many ids in one round-trip'), so the agent immediately knows this is the batch variant of a single-node fetch. The verb+resource+scope is unambiguous and distinguishable from figma_get_node.

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?

Clearly implies the selection condition: use this when fetching many ids in one round-trip instead of calling figma_get_node repeatedly. It names the alternative but does not state explicit exclusions (e.g. when a single call is preferable or the 200-id cap's implications).

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