find_text_in_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool finds text but doesn't describe what it returns (e.g., positions, counts, or matches), whether it's read-only or modifies the document, error handling for missing files, or performance implications. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or parameter details, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively beyond a basic understanding of its purpose.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description doesn't explain any parameters beyond implying 'text_to_find' and 'filename'. It doesn't clarify the purpose of 'match_case' or 'whole_word', their default values, or how they affect search behavior, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('occurrences of specific text in a Word document'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'search_and_replace' by focusing on finding rather than replacing, though it doesn't explicitly mention this distinction.

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 'search_and_replace' or 'get_document_text'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as whether the document must exist or be accessible, or any performance considerations for large documents.

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