search_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions basic behavior ('search for text') and return ('search results with locations'), but lacks details on potentially important traits like case sensitivity, scope (all occurrences?), or whether it selects/highlights. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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 and well-structured: a clear one-sentence purpose, followed by an Args section and a Returns section. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true'). The description covers the action, input, and return format. While it could mention scope or limitations, it is sufficiently complete for a straightforward search function.

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 description explicitly defines the only parameter 'keyword' as 'Text to search for' in the Args section. Given the input schema has 0% description coverage (no descriptions in properties), the description fully compensates by providing clear meaning for the required parameter.

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 purpose: 'Search for text in the current document.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the purpose is unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'find_text' or 'find_and_replace,' which may overlap in functionality.

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 alternatives, nor are there any exclusions or context for its appropriate use. The description simply states the action without any usage recommendations.

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