search_formulas

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

Even with readOnlyHint=true, the description adds meaningful behavior: code_only ignores matches inside string literals/comments, property and control narrow the search, and results include control, property, and matching lines. It does not contradict the annotations.

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?

Three compact sentences deliver the core purpose, key flags, filters, and return shape with no filler. The most important usage facts are front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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 9-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the search/filter model and return fields, but the required source parameter is never explained and there is no guidance on limit or case_sensitive. That leaves enough ambiguity that an agent could mis-invoke the tool despite the strong overall framing.

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 carry the parameter-documentation burden. It explains regex, code_only, property, and control, and implies pattern is the search term, but it leaves required source and app undefined, and does not describe limit or case_sensitive. This is only partial compensation.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Search every Power Fx formula in a canvas app' for a substring or regex. It also names the return shape (control, property, matching lines), making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinguishing it from the sibling tools like list_controls and get_control.

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 clear operational context: regex toggling, code-only filtering, property filtering, and control filtering. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but none of the siblings are formula-search tools, so the intended use is clear.

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