search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions searching for cells containing values, but doesn't describe what happens when matches are found (are they returned? highlighted? counted?), whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be needed, or any performance considerations. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 perfectly concise at 7 words, front-loading the core purpose with zero wasted words. Every word earns its place, making it immediately clear what the tool does without unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity of a search operation with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (list of cells? count? modified file?), doesn't mention performance implications for large files, and provides no context about error conditions or limitations. For a tool with this level of complexity and no structured metadata, the description should do more.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all 4 parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain the relationship between parameters or provide usage examples. With complete schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without additional parameter information in the description.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Search for cells containing a specific value' - this specifies the verb (search), resource (cells in files), and target (specific value). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'filter_rows' or 'find_duplicates' which might have overlapping search functionality, so it doesn't reach the highest clarity level.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools that might perform similar operations (filter_rows, find_duplicates, smart_data_analysis), there's no indication of when this specific search tool is appropriate versus other options. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it.

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