search_text

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does disclose key behavior: case-insensitive substring by default, regex support, which content is searched, and what is returned (matching shapes with context). It omits read-only/side-effect guarantees and any auth or performance notes, keeping it below a 5.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and analogy, then the searched surfaces and return behavior. No filler or redundancy.

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?

With seven parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers return shape (matching shapes with context at the chosen level) and search scope. It could say more about result limits or ordering, but nothing critical for invocation is missing.

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 100%, so every parameter including query, regex, context, slideRange, includeNotes, caseSensitive, and presentationId is already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the default case-insensitivity and return-level concepts but adds little beyond the structured fields, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Search for text across all slides") and distinguishes itself from siblings with the concrete analogy "like grep for slides." It also names exactly what is searched: shape text, table cells, and speaker notes.

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?

Explains when to use it implicitly through scope (slide range, notes inclusion, context level) and the grep analogy settles the search intent. It does not explicitly exclude or point to alternatives like read_deck_text or scan_slide, which is the only gap.

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