search_components

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does disclose the auth prerequisite (requires FIGMA_TOKEN) and the endpoint that each input mode maps to, which is real value. However it omits pagination behavior for pageSize, rate limits, error modes, and does not explicitly confirm the operation is read-only.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by routing and filter detail; no filler. Slightly dense with endpoint paths, but every sentence contributes information.

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 read-only REST search with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials (auth, endpoint routing, two of four params) but leaves the agent guessing about the 'type' parameter and about what the response contains or how pagination terminates.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all four parameters. It explains teamId (routing switch), fileKey and pageSize (filters), but the 'type' parameter is never mentioned in either the schema or the description, leaving it fully opaque; pageSize's valid range and fileKey's expected format are also unstated.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Search for components/component-sets') and scopes it to the Figma REST API, so an agent knows this is a remote/API-backed search rather than a local document read. It does not explicitly contrast itself with close siblings such as get_local_components or find_nodes, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Gives actionable conditional guidance: supply teamId to hit /v1/team/{teamId}/components, omit it to fall back to /v1/me/components. That tells the agent which input shape selects which behavior, but it never states when to prefer this tool over sibling search/import tools or what the prerequisite token setup entails.

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