find_rows

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it never states that this is a read-only operation, how no-match or large-result cases behave, or any permission/limit considerations. It does disclose that matching is case-insensitive and that exact=True vs False toggles exact/substring matching, which is a small piece of genuine behavioral detail.

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 first sentence front-loads the purpose and the Args block is tight with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a 7-parameter tool, though the arg list is a plain enumeration rather than prioritized guidance.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not needed, and all 7 parameters are documented. What remains missing is usage routing and any behavioral/safety disclosure, which are the only real gaps for an otherwise well-covered read 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 do all the work, and it does: every one of the 7 parameters is explained, including the meaning of spreadsheet_id ('long token from the URL'), the 1-based indexing of header_row, case-insensitive matching for value, the exact/substring toggle, and limit as a maximum match count. This adds substantial meaning beyond bare JSON types.

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 gives a specific verb (find) plus resource (records in a tab) and a qualifying predicate (column matches a value), which is enough to distinguish it from a plain bulk reader. It does not explicitly name which sibling to use instead (e.g. read_records vs read_range), so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus the several reading siblings (read_range, read_records, get_spreadsheet). The usage is only implied by 'find records ... whose column matches a value'; no exclusions or alternatives are offered.

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