find_text

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits, but it only mentions regex support and coordinate output. It does not disclose return format, pagination, error handling, or authentication requirements. The external reference link is useful but not directly embedded, so transparency is limited.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a reference link. It front-loads the core purpose and adds a key feature (regex) without redundancy. This is well-structured for a simple tool, though it sacrifices depth for brevity.

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 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient for complete understanding. It doesn't explain what the coordinates look like, how the tool behaves across pages, or what the response structure is. The schema helps but the description doesn't fill gaps like return values or potential limitations.

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 100% coverage, so all parameters are described there. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it mentions regex support and coordinate output, but doesn't clarify parameter usage beyond what the schema already states. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's function: finding text in a PDF and returning coordinates. It specifies the resource (PDF) and the action (find text), and mentions regex support, which distinguishes it from simple text search. It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives like find_table, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies usage for locating text strings in PDFs, especially with regex needs. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings (e.g., find_table) or any exclusions. There is no mention of prerequisites or use cases, so the guidance is only implicit.

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