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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses that matching is case-insensitive, applies to any cell, and returns at most 50 rows. It does not discuss pagination, ordering, or error behavior, but these are less critical for a read-style search 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?

The description is a single efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core behavior, then adds the case-insensitive detail and the result cap. Every phrase earns its place.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned (matching rows) and the upper bound on results. It could mention ordering or default limit, but an agent can invoke the tool correctly with the information provided.

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 schema documents the query parameter but not the limit parameter, giving 50% coverage. The description adds partial meaning by saying results are capped at 50 and that the query is searched across cells, relating to both parameters. However, it does not clarify the default limit or the exact behavior when limit is omitted.

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 that the tool returns rows of the Abutly dataset whose cells contain the query, and adds useful specifics: case-insensitive matching and a limit of 50. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the function is distinct and clear enough from the wording.

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 usage context is implied by the description: use this when you need to find dataset rows containing a given text fragment. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tools (e.g., dataset_row, dataset_top) to prefer instead.

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