search_workbook

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the substring matching behavior, the ability to search one or all sheets, the case-sensitive option, and the limit to bound response size. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, but 'Search' strongly implies non-mutating behavior, making this a solid, though not exhaustive, disclosure.

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 perfectly concise: a single-sentence summary followed by a compact Args list. Each parameter gets exactly one line with clear intent and no redundant information. Every sentence earns its place.

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 the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description covers all necessary input semantics, usage context, and behavioral details. It explains how to handle multiple files, sheet restriction, case matching, and response size, making it complete for this search 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 fully explain each parameter. The Args section provides meaningful semantics for all five parameters: path (file or preloaded name), query (substring), sheet (restriction or all), match_case (case sensitivity), and limit (response size bound). This goes well beyond the schema's titles and defaults.

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 begins with 'Search cell values across one or all sheets for a substring match,' which uses a specific verb (Search), resource (cell values across sheets), and scope (substring match). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like read_sheet or get_cell by emphasizing search semantics.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: whenever substring search across sheets is needed. It explains how to restrict to one sheet ('Restrict the search to one sheet; omit to search every sheet') and mentions omitting path when only one file is configured. No explicit alternatives are listed, but the search-focused purpose inherently guides the agent.

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