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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose case-insensitive matching, full-cell search scope, and the 50-row cap, which is useful. However, it omits details like the default limit when not provided, result ordering, handling of zero matches, and whether the operation is purely read-only.

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?

A single, dense sentence that front-loads the core behavior and packs in matching scope, case sensitivity, and result cap. Every word earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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, the description conveys the essential behavior and return shape (rows). Minor gaps remain, such as the default limit, ordering, and empty-result behavior, but nothing critical is missing for a competent agent to invoke this tool.

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%: the query parameter is already described in the schema, and the description adds the case-insensitive behavior tying to it. The limit parameter has no schema description, and the description only indirectly addresses it via 'up to 50' — it does not explain defaults or the effect of lower limit values. The description partially compensates but does not fully cover the gap.

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 states exactly what the tool does: it returns rows of the BurdenRateLedger dataset matching a query, with case-insensitive cell matching and a cap of 50. The resource, matching behavior, and result scope are all specified, distinguishing it from sibling tools like dataset_row, dataset_stats, and 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 description implies when to use the tool (when you need rows containing arbitrary text), but it never explicitly names alternatives or states when-not-to-use it. An agent can infer the use case from the described behavior, but there is no routing guidance relative to the sibling tools.

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