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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by stating that matching is case-insensitive, that the search applies to all cells, and that the result is capped at 50 rows. It does not mention return format or ordering, but these are not critical for a simple read-only search operation.

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 resource and includes the key behavioral modifiers: case-insensitivity and result cap. Every word earns its place, and there is no repetition of schema fields or redundant filler.

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 two-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers input semantics, matching behavior, and the result cap. It lacks explicit return-value details and sibling-tool comparison, but the tool is simple enough that an agent can invoke it correctly with the given information.

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 query parameter is already documented in the schema as 'text to look for in any cell,' and the description reinforces that while adding case-insensitivity. The limit parameter has only min/max constraints in the schema; the description's 'up to 50' partially clarifies its effect but does not explicitly explain how limit controls the result count or what happens when it is omitted. With 50% schema coverage, the description compensates only moderately.

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 defines the tool's behavior: it returns rows of the Capanix dataset where any cell contains the query, case-insensitively. This unmistakably distinguishes it from sibling tools like dataset_row, dataset_columns, and dataset_stats without needing to inspect schemas. Though there is no explicit verb, the meaning is unambiguous and resource-specific.

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 provides no guidance on when to use dataset_search versus sibling tools such as dataset_row or dataset_top, and it gives no exclusions or alternative conditions. The intended use is implied by the tool name and the phrase 'rows whose cells contain the query,' but the description never explicitly states when this tool should be preferred over others.

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