table_find_row

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not explain what 'tested' means, whether the operation is read-only, whether it selects or navigates the row, what happens when no matching row exists, or how the result is returned.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action, so there is no wasted wording. However, it is under-specified for a tool with five parametershebdomadal, and the unexplained term 'tested' does not contribute 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?

For a tool with multiple parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits return value shape, error behavior, scope of the table being searched, and the meaning of the auxiliary parameters, making it incomplete for reliable invocation.

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 compensate for parameter meaning. It only loosely implies that 'text' is the text to find, but it gives no explanation for 'name', 'title', 'limit', or 'session_id', leaving an agent unable to confidently provide correct values.

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 states a specific action ('Find') and resource ('table row') with a criterion ('containing text'), which is enough to distinguish it from sibling row-manipulation tools like table_goto_row or table_delete_row. However, the adjective 'tested' is ambiguous and never explained, so the purpose is not fully crisp.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as table_rows, table_cell_text, or table_current_row. It also does not state prerequisites like needing a specific table context or a session.

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