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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses case-insensitive matching, cell-level searching, and the 50-row cap. However, it does not mention outcome for no matches, result shape, or whether limit controls default vs maximum.

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, front-loaded sentence conveys the core behavior, search scope, case sensitivity, and result cap. Every word adds value and there is no 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 simple read-only search tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description plus schema is largely sufficient to invoke it correctly. The main omission is the return shape, but the description does convey that rows are returned, which keeps the tool usable.

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 covers the query parameter explicitly, but limit has no description beyond its numeric bounds. The description adds the case-insensitive search semantics and 'up to 50' behavior, partially compensating for the 50% schema coverage, but it does not clarify the optional limit parameter's default or exact effect.

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 states the resource (Dividvo dataset rows) and the matching behavior (cells containing the query), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like dataset_columns or dataset_stats. It is clear but does not explicitly name or contrast itself with a sibling.

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 search tool versus alternatives such as dataset_row, dataset_stats, or dataset_top. The description only explains what the tool does, not the intended use case or exclusions.

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