find_text

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'find text occurrences'. It does not clarify return type (e.g., list of locations, count, boolean), effect on document, or performance implications. The input schema hints at search options, but description adds no behavioral context.

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 short (5 words) but lacks critical information, making it under-informative. Conciseness should not sacrifice clarity; here it fails to earn its place by not adding value beyond the tool name.

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 4 parameters, 2 required, and no output schema, the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain output format, error handling, or behavior with multiple/zero matches, leaving an AI agent with insufficient information to invoke the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does not mention doc_id (which document), text, match_case, or whole_word beyond their names, leaving their semantics entirely implicit.

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?

Description clearly states the tool finds text occurrences in a document, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes well from sibling tools like replace_text or get_text, but could be more explicit about what 'occurrences' entails (count, positions, or highlights).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., replace_text, get_text). The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or conditions where this tool is preferred.

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