find_in_workbook

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

No annotations provided, so description must compensate. It discloses matching rules (string form for values, formula text for formulas) and a 500-match limit. This gives good insight into tool behavior, though it could mention case sensitivity handling.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then scope, then details. No wasted words, easy to scan.

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?

No output schema, but description states returns up to 500 matches with cell addresses. Sufficient for a search tool. Could specify output format but not necessary for agent decision.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, but description adds meaning for query, regex, and sheet parameters. It explains matching semantics and scope. Match_case is not directly explained, but parameter name is self-explanatory. Overall, description provides context beyond 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 tool finds cells based on query text or regex, specifies scope (single sheet or whole workbook), and gives matching behavior and result limit. It distinguishes from sibling tools like read_range or find/replace.

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 explains when to specify a sheet vs search entire workbook. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare to other find/replace tools, but the guidance is sufficient for typical use.

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