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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does a good job by stating that matching is case-insensitive, searches across all cells, and returns up to 50 rows. It does not detail default limit behavior or output ordering, but the core behavior is transparent enough for selection.

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?

One sentence contains all essential behavioral information: what is searched, how matching works, and the row cap. It is front-loaded and wastes no words.

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 straightforward search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is mostly complete: it identifies the return type (rows), the search scope, case sensitivity, and the limit. It could be more complete by mentioning the default limit and whether results are ordered, but the current description provides enough for an agent to decide whether to invoke it.

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, so description coverage is 50%. The description adds meaning by clarifying case-insensitive cell matching and the 50-row cap, but it does not explicitly explain how the 'limit' parameter controls the result count or what the default is. It partially compensates for the schema gap without fully covering it.

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 what the tool does: it returns dataset rows whose cells contain a case-insensitive query, capped at 50. It is specific about the resource (Attestvio dataset) and the matching behavior, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like dataset_row or dataset_top.

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 intended usage is implied: use this tool when you need to find rows by arbitrary text appearing in any cell. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tool might be more appropriate for other scenarios.

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