search

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description only needs to add context. It does add real value by disclosing the return shape ('Returns cell addresses'), which is otherwise undocumented since there is no output schema. It stops short of mentioning result caps/pagination 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 short sentences, zero filler, with the action front-loaded and the return value second. Nothing could be trimmed without losing content.

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 strong annotations and a well-documented schema, the description supplies the missing return-type information. The only gap is that case_sensitive carries no schema description and the description does not compensate for it, which is minor.

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 83%, above the 80% threshold, so the schema already documents mode, path, limit, sheet and query. The description's mention of 'text, numeric or regex' loosely maps to query/mode but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 ('Find cells') plus the matching criteria (text, numeric, regex) and the return shape ('cell addresses'). This is clear and unambiguous, but it never names or contrasts with the adjacent siblings like get_sheet_data or apply_filter, so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb: an agent can infer 'use this to locate values,' but there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative (e.g., apply_filter for filtered views) to disambiguate the crowded sibling set.

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