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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: matching is exact and case-sensitive, regex is not supported, long-line matches include surrounding context, and results are capped at 50 matches.

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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by match-display and result-limit details. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition.

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 read-only search tool with no output schema, the description explains the search semantics, snippet behavior, and 50-match cap well. The main missing piece is how the optional 'path' parameter behaves when omitted.

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 partial at 67%, and the description compensates for the undocumented 'text' parameter by specifying exact literal matching, case sensitivity, and non-regex behavior. It does not clarify whether omitting 'path' searches all four files, leaving one notable gap around the optional path parameter.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: find where a text string appears in the open page's files. It clearly differs from read_file/edit_file/list_files by focusing on locating text matches, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Find where a piece of text appears,' which tells the agent this is a search operation rather than a file read. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it instead of studio_read_file or studio_list_files, and no stated exclusions.

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