find_in_range

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It helpfully describes the return value as an address or multi-area address string, but it omits important behavior such as what happens when there is no match, whether the search covers formulas or values, and whether the operation is strictly read-only.

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 two tight sentences: first the purpose and search scope, then the return format. It is front-loaded and has no redundant or filler text.

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 full input schema documents all parameters and defaults, and the description explains the return shape even though there is no output schema. It could be more complete by specifying no-match behavior and whether it searches displayed values or formulas, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 100%, so all seven parameters are already documented in the schema. The description lightly reinforces the 'range' and 'all' parameters but adds no syntax, edge-case, or default semantics beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Find text in a range or the whole used range.' It also states the return value, making the tool's effect clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings such as search_text, read_range, or replace_in_sheet.

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 implies usage by saying it searches a range or the whole used range, and the schema documents defaults. But it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this versus sibling search/read tools, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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