search_excel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It clearly explains search behavior (case-insensitive substring, coordinate+value returns), default exclusions (hidden rows/columns), and limits (100 results). Missing details on error handling or performance, but sufficient for safe invocation.

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 efficient: a one-sentence purpose followed by a bullet-like list of behavioral traits and parameter notes. Every sentence adds value. The @param lines are slightly redundant with the schema but provide necessary semantics, so not wasteful.

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 tool has a straightforward search operation with 4 parameters, all explained. The output schema exists and description mentions return format (formatted text with coordinates and values). For its complexity, the description is sufficiently complete. Minor gap: no mention of case sensitivity or substring behavior in parameter notes, but covered in the behavioral paragraph.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the JSDoc-style @param notes in the description add critical meaning: file_path requires an absolute path, query is text to search, sheet_name can limit to specific sheet or None, include_hidden defaults false. These details compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 'Search for text content across all cells in an Excel workbook,' clearly stating the verb (Search), resource (cells in an Excel workbook), and scope (all cells). This distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_sheets or read_excel_data which have different purposes.

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 useful behavioral details (case-insensitive substring search, hidden rows/columns excluded by default, 100-result limit) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like read_excel_data or write_excel_rows. The usage context is implied but not contrasted with siblings.

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