search_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions case-insensitivity and regex capability, and that it returns paragraphs with paraId, source part, and context. However, it does not state side effects (likely none since it's a search) or any behavioral traits beyond the basic operation. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise and well-structured: a single sentence for purpose, bullet points for arguments, and a line for return values. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description covers the main functionality and return format. However, it fails to document the 'document_handle' parameter, which is a gap. It also lacks mention of any limits or pagination, though the output schema may handle return details. Overall, adequate but incomplete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'query' (case-insensitive, regex pattern) and 'regex' (boolean to treat query as regex). However, it omits the 'document_handle' parameter entirely. This partial coverage earns a 3.

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 clearly states the tool searches for text across specific document parts (body, footnotes, comments) and returns matching paragraphs with identifiers and context. It uses a specific verb 'Search' and specifies the resource scope, distinguishing it from other document retrieval tools.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like xpath_query, find_replace_formatted, or text retrieval tools. There is no mention of limitations or when not to use it, leaving the agent without decision-making context.

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