find_text

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states the search is case-insensitive, operates on a substring, and covers TEXT, MTEXT, and block attributes, giving useful detail beyond the tool name. It does not mention all limitations, but the search semantics are reasonably transparent.

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 short, front-loaded with the core action and scope, and the second sentence adds a practical usage scenario. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant filler.

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?

The description is adequate for tool selection and general invocation, but it leaves a key required parameter, path, under-defined. Since there are only two parameters, missing clarity on one is a meaningful gap, even though an output schema likely covers return values.

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 provides zero descriptions for path and needle, and the description does not explicitly define either parameter. 'Needle' can be inferred as the substring, but 'path' is left ambiguous, so an agent may not know whether it expects a file path, drawing ID, or directory. The description does not compensate for the 0% schema coverage.

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 names a specific verb ('Search'), concrete resources (TEXT, MTEXT, block attributes), and the matching behavior (substring, case-insensitive). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_layers or extract_bill_of_materials, which serve different functions.

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?

It provides a clear use case: locating a part number or revision note when the block or layer is unknown. It does not explicitly name alternatives or give when-not-to-use guidance, but the scenario strongly implies when this tool is the right choice.

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