search.all_constant

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It reveals none of: whether this is a read-only operation, if it returns results or modifies state, what 'constant' means semantically, pagination behavior, or performance implications. A score of 1 would require contradiction; instead, this is simply anemic.

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 one short sentence, 5 words, which is lean. However, it is so minimal that it sacrifices clarity and completeness. This is under-specification, not efficiency. A score of 3 reflects being too brief to be fully valuable.

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 5 parameters (4 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly insufficient. The agent cannot determine parameter types, return format, or behavior. Sibling tools like 'search.all_text' and 'search.all_data' exist, implying similar search patterns, but this tool's description is notably sparse in comparison.

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?

Parameter schema coverage is 0%, meaning the description adds no documentation for any of the 5 parameters, including the required ones. The schema names ('start', 'end', 'constant', 'limit', 'session_id') hint at meaning but the description provides no additional context on formats (e.g., what types start/end accept – address? line number?) or the role of 'session_id'. For a tool with 0% coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 action ('Find') and resource ('constant occurrences') with a scope ('in range'). This differentiates it from siblings like 'search.next_constant' (single occurrence) and 'search.all_text'/'search.all_data' (different types). A 5 is not given because the term 'range' is ambiguous – it could mean a cell range, address range, or something else.

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 similar ones like 'search.next_constant', 'search.data', or 'search.all_text'. There is no explanation of prerequisites, the meaning of 'range', or when to prefer this over alternatives. The description is minimal and leaves the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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