docx.find

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Find text' and gives no context about whether the operation is read-only, what the search returns, whether it supports case sensitivity, or how it handles multiple matches. This is insufficient for an agent to predict the tool's behavior beyond the name.

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 extremely short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than concise. A single sentence that does not explain the tool's behavior or parameters does not earn its place as an adequate description for a tool with three parameters and a potentially ambiguous return value.

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?

There is no output schema, no annotations, and no description of return value, edge cases, or relationship to sibling tools. Given that there is a sibling called text_find_locations, the description is incomplete without explaining how this tool differs. An agent cannot confidently call this 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?

The schema describes docId and query, and the mode parameter has an enum but no description. The description adds no extra meaning to any parameter—it merely restates the concept of searching. With 67% schema coverage, there is partial coverage, but the description fails to clarify how mode works or what query syntax is expected.

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 verb ('find') and resource ('text in document'), giving a basic sense of the operation. However, it is vague about what 'find' actually returns (matches, locations, counts?) and does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like docx.text_find_locations or docx.get_text. The purpose is clear in general but not precise enough to guide an agent.

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. It does not mention docx.text_find_locations or docx.get_text, nor any conditions that would select this tool over them. An agent is left to infer usage entirely.

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