find_in_document

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

With readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false already provided by annotations, the description adds value by disclosing non-obvious behavior: identical FTS5/BM25 expression and deterministic tie order as search_documents. This helps an agent predict ranking consistency and does not contradict the annotations.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, the scope, and the key behavioral compatibility. Every phrase earns its place, with no filler or unnecessary repetition of schema contents.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description does not clarify what the search results look like, such as ranked excerpts or match locations. The semantics of top_k and excerpt_chars are left to inference, which makes the description adequate for selection but less complete for an agent that must interpret the response.

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 67%, and the key identifiers and query parameter are already documented in the schema. The description itself adds no parameter-level semantics, and top_k and excerpt_chars remain effectively undocumented, so a middle score 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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Search inside one document', which clearly distinguishes this tool from the broader search_documents sibling. The reference to SQLite FTS5/BM25 and deterministic tie order adds precision without obscuring the core purpose.

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 phrase 'inside one document' gives clear context for when to use this tool, and naming search_documents indicates the closely related alternative. It does not explicitly state exclusions like 'use search_documents for cross-document search', but the scope is unambiguous enough for an agent to select correctly.

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