find

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds useful context: it searches text/entity types and can optionally select, zoom, and highlight results. It does not explain the non-idempotent hint or return behavior, but it adds meaningful operational context beyond 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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence that states the primary search capability first and the optional follow-up behavior second. There is no wasted text.

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 six-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description should clarify return results, how limit affects results, and what layer filtering does. It covers the core search and show behavior but leaves notable gaps around result shape and omitted parameters.

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 coverage is 67%, with descriptions present for show, text, type, and in_view. The description reinforces text/entity search and the show behavior, but it does not add meaning for layer or limit, leaving those parameters largely undocumented in both places.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: search the drawing for text or entity types, with concrete examples such as labels, reference designators, notes, and entity types. It is clearly distinguishable from zoom/select siblings, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 implies usage by describing searchable content and the optional jump/highlight behavior, but it does not state when to use this instead of select, inspect, or other navigation tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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