Find schematic sheet

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the return payload (page numbers to pass to get_page_image). It omits whether matching is fuzzy or exact, how results are ranked, and whether it searches both documents by default — gaps that matter for a no-annotation tool.

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?

Two tight sentences: purpose and examples first, then the return-value handoff to get_page_image. No filler.

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 two-parameter lookup with no annotations or output schema, the description covers purpose, query style, and result usage. The only real omission is explicit doc_id behavior and match semantics.

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 50%: query is documented as 'words from the sheet title' and doc_id has an enum but no description. The description compensates partly for query by showing example phrasings, and its mention of 'electrical documentation or the pump manual' implicitly explains the doc_id scope, but it never names doc_id or its 'any' default explicitly.

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?

States a specific verb (find) and resource (sheets/pages of the electrical documentation or pump manual) plus concrete subject examples like "drive Z1" and "terminal XT7". It also hints at the downstream chain via get_page_image, but does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as search, find_component, or get_sheet_index.

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?

Usage is implied by the examples of subjects and the note that results feed get_page_image, so an agent can infer this is the entry point for locating pages by topic. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over search, list_drawings, or find_component, and no exclusions.

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