text_searchFormatting

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only query but says nothing about permissions, whether results are paginated, how maxResults interacts with the search, or the shape of returned ranges. For a 7-parameter query tool this is a substantial gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though arguably too terse given the parameter count and the absence of surrounding behavioral context.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 7 parameters, the definition leaves return-value shape, result limits, and document/story targeting unexplained. An agent can guess the purpose but not reliably call it correctly in edge cases.

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 57%, and the description names font family, style, and size, which map onto fontFamily, fontStyle, and pointSize already documented in the schema. It adds no meaning for storyIndex, document_id, maxResults, or timeout, and no format/syntax details beyond the schema.

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') and resource ('text ranges with specific formatting'), and enumerates the three formatting dimensions searched. It is clearly distinct from a plain content search, though it doesn't name or contrast the close siblings text_search, grep_findFormat, or text_getFormatting.

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 on when to use this versus text_search (content), grep_findFormat (regex formatting), or text_getFormatting (retrieve formatting). The agent is left to infer selection entirely from the name and a single clause.

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