search_cell

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and falls short. It discloses only that snippets are returned and that keywords are space-separated (implying conjunctive matching), but says nothing about scope, case sensitivity, result limits, ranking, or whether empty keywords are valid.

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 compact sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and query format before the return shape. Efficient, though the brevity contributes to the missing behavioral detail elsewhere.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description correctly notes snippets. However, for a search tool with a 0%-documented parameter and no annotations, the absence of scope, matching semantics, and result-limit information leaves meaningful gaps.

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 must compensate for the single undocumented keyword parameter. It does clarify the input format ('space-separated keywords'), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about whether all terms must match, quoting, or special characters.

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 states a specific verb and resource (search cells) and adds query syntax (space-separated keywords) plus result shape (matches with snippets). It distinguishes itself adequately from read_cell by being query-based rather than retrieval-based, though it never names the sibling explicitly.

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?

No guidance on when to use this over read_cell or load_notebook, and no mention of scope (current notebook vs. all notebooks) or any prerequisites. The agent must infer usage entirely from the verb.

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