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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the case-insensitive matching, that both values and formulas are searched, and the important fallback behavior when 'sheet' is omitted. The return shape is not described, but the behavioral cautions are substantive.

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 description is two sentences with no filler. The primary operation is front-loaded, and the critical warning about missing 'sheet' is placed immediately where an agent needs it.

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 simple two-parameter search tool, the description covers both parameters and the most dangerous edge case explicitly. Since there is no output schema, a note about return values or zero-match behavior would be helpful, but the input contract is complete enough to invoke the tool correctly.

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 only 50% because 'query' lacks a schema description. The description compensates by explaining that the search text matches values or formulas case-insensitively and by specifying when 'sheet' is mandatory and what happens if it is omitted.

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 description states a specific action ('Find cells'), a specific scope ('used range of a sheet'), and matching semantics ('value or formula contains the text case-insensitively'). This makes the tool's purpose immediately clear and distinguishes it from the sibling document_find by domain.

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?

The description provides clear, explicit context for using the 'sheet' parameter: it is required when the workbook has more than one sheet, and omitting it causes the open sheet to be searched. It does not compare against alternative tools, but the parameter-level guidance is strong.

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