Find text

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry behavioral details, and it does: matching is case insensitive, every cell is searched, and the result includes cell addresses plus a row preview. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, but the search behavior and return description make that reasonably clear.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the call instruction, adds a key limitation of file readers, and gives the most important behavioral and output details succinctly.

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?

For a simple search tool with 3 fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior, return shape, and case sensitivity. It could mention the optional sheet default or the 200-hit limit, but those are already present in the schema, so the description is close to 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about searching 'every cell' and mentions CSV alongside spreadsheets, but it does not add meaningful parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides for path, text, and sheet.

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 a specific behavior: searching every cell of a spreadsheet or CSV for text and returning cell addresses with row previews. It explains why this tool is needed ('built-in file readers cannot parse spreadsheets'), but it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like sheet_read or sheet_query.

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?

It directly says when to use the tool: whenever you need to search a spreadsheet or CSV for text. The note about built-in file readers gives practical context, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives among the spreadsheet sibling tools.

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