find_in_document

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It mentions the return format (anchors with paragraphId, expected, occurrence) but omits critical details such as support for regex, case sensitivity, whole-word matching, and whether the operation is read-only. This leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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?

The description is a single efficient sentence that conveys the core purpose and return value format. However, it lacks structure and could benefit from bullet points or separate sentences for parameters and behavior, but remains reasonably concise.

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?

Given the absence of output schema and annotations, the description is incomplete. It partially explains the return format but fails to cover all parameters, usage context, and behavioral traits (e.g., regex support). For a 6-parameter required tool, this is insufficient for an agent to reliably select and invoke the 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 0%, so the description must fully explain parameters. It only mentions connectionId and documentId, ignoring the 4 other required parameters (pattern, regex, wholeWord, caseSensitive). Without any description of pattern or search options, the agent cannot understand how to use the tool correctly.

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 clearly states 'Find text in a Word document', specifying the action, resource, and key identifiers (connectionId, documentId). It is distinct from sibling tools like inspect_document or list_connections, as none other specialize in text search within a document.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context like 'Use this to find text patterns; for structural overview use inspect_document.' The agent is left without direction.

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