search_sheet

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the search functionality but doesn't cover important aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, performance characteristics (e.g., speed on large sheets), authentication requirements, error handling, or what happens with multiple matches. The description is too minimal for a tool with 4 parameters.

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 concise at just one sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and efficiently communicates the basic purpose. Every word earns its place, 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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, for a search tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It covers the basic purpose but lacks crucial context about behavior, parameter usage, and relationship to sibling tools. The existence of an output schema raises the baseline slightly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but fails to do so. It mentions searching 'across one sheet or all sheets' which hints at the sheet_name parameter, but doesn't explain the spreadsheet_id_or_url format, what 'needle' represents, or the case_sensitive option. The description adds minimal value beyond what's implied by parameter names.

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 action ('Search text'), target ('across one sheet or all sheets'), and outcome ('return matching cells'). It distinguishes from siblings like read_sheet_values or read_sheet_grid by focusing on text search rather than data retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar search tools that might exist.

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 doesn't mention when to choose search_sheet over other tools like read_sheet_values for data extraction or how it relates to siblings like sheet_to_json. There's no context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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