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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses several non-obvious behaviors: case-insensitive matching, substring-like cell containment, and an upper bound of 50 returned rows. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior or the output format, but the language strongly implies a non-mutating query.

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 sentence that front-loads the resource and core behavior, with every phrase earning its place. It is compact without sacrificing the key details needed to understand the tool.

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 with no output schema, the description covers the essential semantics: what is searched, how matching works, and the result cap. Minor omissions such as result ordering and explicit return structure are not critical given the simplicity of the operation.

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 schema documents the query parameter but not the limit parameter, leaving 50% coverage. The description compensates by clarifying that queries match case-insensitively across cells and that results are capped at 50, giving meaning to both parameters. It doesn't explain the limit's optionality or default, but the schema specifies the numeric bounds.

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 as a search over the CoilDesk dataset, returning rows whose cells contain the query. It specifies the predicate (cell containment), case-insensitivity, and a 50-row cap. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the sibling names (compare, stats, top) make the differentiation reasonably clear.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. There is no mention of when search is appropriate, when it is not, or which alternative to choose for related operations. The agent is left to infer usage from the title and description alone.

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