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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses case-insensitive matching and the 50-row cap, which is useful. However, it does not mention output format, ordering, which rows are returned when more than 50 match, or whether the operation is strictly read-only, leaving moderate gaps.

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?

The description is a single focused sentence with no filler. The most important facts (what is searched, matching behavior, result cap) are front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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 is adequate but bare. It lacks guidance on choosing among the six sibling tools, default limit behavior, row ordering, and return shape. The core semantics are present, but an agent has several open questions when invoking 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?

Schema coverage is 50%: only 'query' has a description. The description adds the case-insensitive behavior for query and reinforces the limit cap, but it does not explicitly map 'up to 50' to the 'limit' parameter or explain default behavior. It adds some value beyond the schema but does not fully compensate for the undocumented limit.

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 explicitly states the resource (Clauselane dataset), the action (find rows whose cells contain the query), and key modifiers (case-insensitive, up to 50). This is a specific, self-contained purpose that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like dataset_columns or dataset_row.

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 says what the tool does but not when to use it over alternatives. It never mentions any sibling tool, exclusion condition, or scenario where another dataset_* tool would be more appropriate. The intended use case is inferable but not explicit.

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