get_figma_design_from_url

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the auth requirement, the two distinct return modes (spec vs file outline), the shared-styles indirection, the exportAs:svg marker, and the assets list. It stops short of pagination/rate-limit notes, keeping it at 4.

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 purpose and prerequisite, then the mode distinction. Dense but every sentence covers a distinct concept (mode, spec format, assets, tokens); the return-format detail is legitimately needed given no output schema.

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 complex, no-output-schema read tool the description covers return shapes, token/auth needs, and asset handling well. Minor residual gaps are pagination limits and how maxDepth/includeHidden affect the spec, but nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds value by showing the URL format example, the fileKey+nodeId alternative, and the behavioral consequence of supplying a node. maxDepth and includeHidden are left to the schema, which is acceptable.

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 ('Read a Figma design') plus the method ('Figma REST API, no plugin needed'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like read_my_design (plugin-based) and get_node_info by naming its URL-driven read path.

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?

Explains the token prerequisite (FIGMA_ACCESS_TOKEN) and the node-vs-no-node selection rule with the purpose of each mode ('pick one'). It routes to download_design_assets for assets, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with read_my_design or get_design_context siblings.

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