search_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully covers behavioral details: it returns matching paragraphs with surrounding context, limits results via 'max_results', and optionally includes annotations. The return structure is thoroughly described, including fields like 'match_start', 'match_end', and 'context_before'.

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 well-structured with a summary, usage hint, parameter list, and return explanation. It is efficient but slightly verbose; for example, the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections could be condensed without losing clarity.

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?

The description is self-contained and complete for a search tool. It covers purpose, parameters, behavior, and return format, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does or how to use it.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the 'Args' section in the description clearly explains each parameter, including defaults and effects. The return value is also detailed, compensating fully for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 starts with 'Search for text in a Word document,' which clearly states the verb and resource. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'read_document' by emphasizing that it finds specific content without loading the entire 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?

The description advises using the tool to 'find specific content without loading the entire document,' implying it is not for full-document reading. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools like 'read_document' for when the entire document is needed.

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