Find cells

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds essentially nothing beyond them — no note that search defaults to all sheets, that results are capped by max_results, or how values mode behaves with uncalculated formulas (all of which live only in the schema).

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 with zero filler; the matching semantics are stated immediately. It is efficient, though its brevity edges toward under-specification for a 7-parameter tool rather than purposeful economy.

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 schema fully documents the seven parameters. What is missing is context on search scope defaults and the relationship to read_range, leaving the definition minimally adequate rather than complete for a multi-sheet search tool.

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 100%, so every parameter including mode, sheet, exact, case_sensitive and max_results is already documented with useful detail. The phrase 'contains (or equals)' loosely mirrors the exact flag, but adds no syntax or format information beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Find cells') plus the matching basis ('whose value contains (or equals) the query'), so an agent knows exactly what the tool retrieves. It falls short of a 5 because it never contrasts itself with the other read-oriented siblings such as read_range or describe_sheet, leaving scope differentiation to inference.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. An agent must guess whether to reach for find_cells versus read_range when it needs values from a worksheet; nothing in the text routes that decision.

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