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

The description adds useful behavioral details beyond the annotations: matching is case insensitive, and it returns cell addresses with a row preview. Since annotations provide no positive safety signal and the tool is a search operation, this is reasonably transparent, though it could have explicitly stated it does not modify the file.

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 and front-loads the core purpose with 'Call this tool to search every cell...' followed by a brief rationale and key behavioral details. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundancy.

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 search tool with full schema coverage, the description adequately explains return shape (cell addresses with row preview) and matching behavior. It is slightly incomplete in that it does not describe error conditions or explicitly confirm no side effects, but these are minor for this operation.

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 100%, so the input schema fully documents all three parameters. The description adds high-level behavior but does not materially extend parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, meriting the baseline score.

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: 'search every cell of a spreadsheet or CSV for text.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like sheet_read and sheet_query, which read or query structured data rather than doing a raw cell-by-cell text search.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when searching spreadsheets for text, noting that 'built-in file readers cannot parse spreadsheets.' It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use it, so it misses the top tier of explicit exclusions.

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