find

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

Annotations already signal readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by disclosing that the tool returns only page locations, not content, which is a non-obvious trait. It stops short of describing search matching, regex, or hit-limit behavior.

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?

Two sentences with no filler; the core action is front-loaded and the output constraint follows immediately. Every sentence 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 read-only search tool with annotations, the description plus schema is usable: the agent knows the output is page locations and can infer the role of each parameter from its name/default. However, it leaves gaps such as how the empty pages default behaves, how max_hits applies, and matching semantics (regex/case), and there is no output schema to clarify return structure.

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 should compensate for undocumented parameters. It adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the self-evident names (query, source, pages, regex, max_hits, password). The agent must infer semantics from titles/defaults alone.

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 and resource ('Locate text across a document') and immediately clarifies the tool's output as page locations rather than content. This distinguishes it from siblings like extract and read_page, which pull content.

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 'Returns page locations, not content' clause implies it should be used for locating text rather than retrieving content, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to prefer this over extract/read_page. Usage guidance is only implied.

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