find

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the shape of results (matching lines plus page, box coordinates, OCR confidence, and surrounding context lines), which is genuinely useful for a tool with no output schema. It omits operational behavior however: whether the call is read-only, how `limit` paginates results, that `regex` defaults to a case-insensitive regex vs literal match, and when OCR is triggered or forced.

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?

It is a single waste-free sentence with the result content front-loaded. But for an 8-parameter search tool the brevity tips into under-specification rather than economy — the sentence is short because it omits necessary information, not because it is well-packed.

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?

With 8 parameters, 13% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should shoulder much more. It partially compensates by describing the return fields, but leaves the search semantics (regex vs literal, page selection syntax, OCR forcing, result limiting) unexplained, so it is not complete enough for reliable invocation.

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 only 13% — just the `pattern` parameter (a case-ignored regular expression) — across 8 parameters. The phrase 'the lines round it' loosely maps to the `context` parameter and 'confidence' hints at OCR behavior, but `dpi`, `limit`, `pages`, `regex`, and `force_ocr` are undocumented in both schema and description, leaving the agent to guess at values and trade-offs.

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 conveys that this is a pattern-matching search that returns matching lines with page, box, confidence and surrounding lines, which is more than a restatement of the name. However, it never names the resource being searched (a PDF at `path`) and gives no differentiation from the sibling `words_in`, which plausibly also searches text in the same document. An agent can guess the purpose but must infer the target object and its relationship to siblings.

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 at all: nothing says when to pick `find` over `words_in`, `read_page`, or `read_pages`, and no prerequisites (e.g., that the file must be OCR-able or that `force_ocr` may be needed) are stated. The only hint is implicit in the returned fields.

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