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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose real traits: case-insensitive matching, cell-containment (not whole-cell equality), row-level results, and a 50-row cap. It omits details like pagination/ordering, but for a read-only search the disclosed behavior is sufficient.

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 16-word sentence that front-loads the resource and result type, then packs in matching semantics, case sensitivity, and the row cap. Every word earns its place with no redundancy against the schema.

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 read-only search tool, the description covers the essentials: result type, match behavior, and limit. The absence of an output schema means return-format details are not spelled out, but nothing an agent needs to safely invoke the tool is missing.

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 only 50%, with the limit parameter undocumented. The description partially compensates: it adds 'case-insensitive' to the query semantics beyond the schema's 'text to look for in any cell,' and ties the limit to the 'up to 50' cap. It does not explain the optionality or default of limit, but it meaningfully enriches both parameters.

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 names the exact resource (Cafmlane dataset), the operation (retrieve rows), and the matching criterion (cells containing the query), adding case-insensitivity and a 50-row cap. This clearly differentiates it from any tool that operates on columns or aggregates rather than row-level text search.

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 use case is implied: invoke this when you need rows whose cells contain a given text query. However, there are no explicit when-to-use instructions, exclusions, or references to alternative tools, so the guidance remains implicit rather than stated.

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