Search for text

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that no actual scanning occurs, text is lowercased and restricted to a 29-symbol alphabet, unsupported characters are dropped/converted, and padding/offset affect the resulting address. This goes beyond a simple read/write hint and provides operational detail.

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 well-structured, front-loads the purpose, and every sentence adds value. It is somewhat dense as a single paragraph but remains appropriate in length and 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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description explains the return value (an address), how to validate it (get_page returns your text), and the behavioral implications of parameters. For a tool with three parameters and no output schema, this is thoroughly complete.

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?

Even though schema coverage is 100%, the description adds meaningful semantics: the text length limit, the alphabet restriction, character handling, and that offset/padding are part of the page and thus change the address. This enriches understanding beyond the schema fields.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Find the address of a page containing the given text.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explaining that it constructs and inverts the address mapping rather than scanning, making its unique functionality clear.

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 for when to use this tool: you want an address for a page containing given text, and get_page on that address returns the text. It implies the relationship with sibling tools but does not explicitly list alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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