figma_search_components

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses pagination, that results include component keys for instantiation, that the design-system cache is auto-loaded, and that the library path uses the REST API with an access-token requirement while the default path uses the Plugin API. It stops short of describing failure modes or rate limits.

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?

Front-loaded with the core verb and return shape, then the mode switch, then the default behavior. The '**NEW:**' marketing formatting and bold emphasis are minor noise that don't earn their place.

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 6-param read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers return shape (paginated, component keys), auth requirements, and the mode-dependent backend. Only edge-case/error behavior is absent, which is minor.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains that libraryFileKey and libraryFileUrl switch the entire backend (REST vs Plugin API) and override local search, which is more than the schema's per-field notes convey.

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') plus the match dimensions (name, category, description). It also distinguishes its two operating modes — local Plugin API search vs. cross-file published-library search — which separates it from sibling tools like figma_get_library_components or figma_get_component_details.

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 a clear conditional: pass libraryFileKey/libraryFileUrl to search a published shared library, omit them to search the currently open file. It also flags the FIGMA_ACCESS_TOKEN prerequisite for the library path. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools, keeping it short of a 5.

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