find_in_document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add real behavioral detail: the Excel search can span displayed, raw, or both representations, and results are anchored by sheetId plus A1 address. It still omits permission/auth needs, error behavior, and whether the operation is strictly read-only.

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 dense sentences with the core capability front-loaded and no filler. The Excel-specific nuance is appended after the general purpose, which reads well.

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 7-parameter, zero-coverage, annotation-free tool, the description is only partially complete. It helpfully discloses return anchors, but with no output schema there is no explanation of overall match shape, multi-match behavior, or pagination.

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% across 7 required parameters, so the description must compensate. It usefully clarifies spreadsheetValueView semantics (displayed, raw, or both), but leaves pattern, regex, wholeWord, and caseSensitive to be inferred purely from their names.

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 (Find) and resource (content) plus the supported document types (Word, PowerPoint, Excel), so the agent knows exactly what the tool operates on. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling inspect_document, leaving overlap for the agent to resolve.

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 guidance on when to use this versus inspect_document or edit_document, no mention of prerequisites such as an opened/registered document, and no exclusions. Usage is only implied by the name.

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