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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses two traits: matching is case-insensitive over any cell, and results are capped at 50. However, it says nothing about result ordering, what a returned row looks like, or whether the 50-result cap is a truncation (i.e. silent drop of further matches).

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 tight sentence with zero filler, and the scope ('Calcul Brut en Net dataset') plus the key constraint ('up to 50') are front-loaded. The 'Rows of ...' opening is slightly indirect but nothing is wasted.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must stand alone; it covers the match semantics and result cap but omits ordering, return row shape, and truncation behavior. Adequate for invocation but leaves the agent guessing about what comes back.

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% and the undocumented 'limit' is partly explained by 'up to 50'. More importantly, the description adds semantics the schema omits: matching is substring-style against any cell and is case-insensitive. That is genuine meaning beyond 'text to look for in any cell'.

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 a specific resource (the Calcul Brut en Net dataset) and operation (returning rows whose cells contain a query), which is a clear verb+resource statement. The 'whose cells contain the query' phrasing distinguishes it from row-fetching siblings like dataset_row, though it never explicitly labels itself as a search or contrasts with dataset_top/dataset_stats.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling is named even though dataset_row, dataset_top, and dataset_stats could plausibly overlap. The agent is left to infer that this is the free-text/substring lookup option on its own.

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