Find installed Figma fonts

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond them: results are scoped to the fonts visible to the currently open Figma Desktop file, and output is 'bounded matches' rather than an unbounded dump. It does not state what happens with no connected file, or how many matches are returned at the default limit.

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 sentences, zero filler. The search scope and resource come first, and the downstream purpose and return-value character follow immediately.

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?

With only three parameters, no output schema and annotations covering safety, the definition is nearly complete: it covers what is searched, the environment constraint, and the shape of the result (exact family/style names). A brief note on the empty-result or no-file-connected case would close the remaining gap.

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 67%: 'query' and 'connectionId' are described in the schema, and 'limit' carries bounds and a default even without a description. The description adds no semantics on top of the schema — no format hints, no explanation of how limit interacts with 'bounded matches' — so the schema is doing the work.

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 fonts') plus scope ('available to the open Figma Desktop file by family or style'). The search/inspect/edit/create distinction is inferable from the tool name and the description's lookup framing, but the description never explicitly differentiates itself from the siblings figma_local_fonts_inspect or figma_local_fonts_status.

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?

'to use for an intentional font change' hints that this runs before an edit, and 'by family or style' indicates matching modes. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative (e.g. use inspect instead when you already know the exact family), so selection against the four sibling tools is left to inference.

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