search_text

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

Discloses return of page numbers and context, but no annotations provided; does not mention if regex is supported, or any side effects. Adequate but not detailed.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Efficient and free of extraneous wording.

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?

No output schema; description explains return values (page numbers, context). Sufficient for a search tool, but could specify format. Context from siblings is good.

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 baseline 3. Description adds 'returns page numbers and context' but does not elaborate on parameter details beyond schema. No additional meaning.

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?

Clearly states verb 'Search for specific text within a PDF file', specifies resource (PDF). Distinguishes from sibling tools like extract_text (which extracts all text) and fill_form.

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?

Suggests usefulness for finding content in large documents but lacks explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use or alternatives. No mention of extract_text for full extraction.

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