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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes nothing beyond that: 'client and server side' is ambiguous and does not explain replacement scope or any edge-case behavior.

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?

The text is brief, but brevity here reflects under-specification rather than conciseness; the only content beyond the name is vendor branding ('from freedailypro') that does not earn its 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 six-parameter tool with no output schema, no parameter descriptions, and only baseline annotations, the description is far too thin to let an agent invoke it correctly. An agent cannot infer default replacement behavior, regex handling, or case handling.

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 0% across six parameters, and the description names none of them. Critical semantics such as whether replaceAll defaults on, regex mode, and case sensitivity are left entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

The phrase 'Find replace' restates the tool name rather than articulating a purpose, and 'client and server side from freedailypro' is vendor branding that adds no scoping information. Nothing distinguishes it from siblings like diff_text or test_regex, which also operate on text.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives (diff_text for comparison, apply_timezone_offset or other text transforms), and no conditions or prerequisites are given. The description offers zero routing guidance.

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