excel_search_value

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

The description aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation, indicating a read-only operation. However, it adds little beyond the annotation, not disclosing details like whether it returns the first match or all matches, or the format of the result. Given that annotations already declare readOnly, the description does not provide substantial additional behavioral insight.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the action. It is concise with no extraneous information. While it could benefit from slightly more detail, it avoids verbosity.

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?

Despite having 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not specify the output format or behavior (e.g., returns cell addresses, supports case sensitivity). The agent lacks enough detail to fully understand the tool's capabilities, making it incomplete for complex use 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?

The description does not elaborate on any parameter beyond what the input schema provides. Two parameters (caseSensitive, responseFormat) lack descriptions in the schema, and the description fails to compensate. With 67% schema coverage, the description should add meaning for the undocumented parameters but does not.

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 'Search for a value in sheet/range' clearly states the verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like excel_read_range which read entire ranges rather than searching for a specific value. However, it does not explicitly mention what the tool returns (e.g., cell reference), which slightly limits clarity.

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. For instance, it doesn't clarify that this tool is for locating a value rather than reading all data. Sibling tools include excel_read_range and excel_filter_rows, which could overlap, but the description offers no context for selection.

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