Find in a document

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real context: the three spreadsheetValueView modes and the Excel return shape ('sheetId plus A1 address anchors'). It stops short of describing matching semantics for regex/wholeWord or limits on result counts.

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 tight sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the Excel-specific behavior and return anchors following it. Every clause carries information.

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, all-required search tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description is too thin: it never states what is returned for Word/PowerPoint results, whether regex and wholeWord can be combined, or how results are bounded. The Excel return format is the only return information given.

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 carry the burden. It explains spreadsheetValueView ('displayed, raw, or both cell representations') but says nothing about regex, wholeWord, caseSensitive, or how those combine — leaving most parameters undocumented in both schema and text.

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 content') and resource scope (Word, PowerPoint, Excel), so an agent immediately knows this is a document search tool. It does not differentiate itself from the closest sibling (inspect_document), leaving some ambiguity about when to search vs. inspect.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternatives named among the eleven siblings. Usage is only implicit in the phrase 'Find content in Word, PowerPoint, or Excel'.

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