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-insensitivity and the 50-row limit, which adds behavioral context. However, it omits details like pagination, sorting, or read-only status, though these are largely implied by the tool's search nature.

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 delivers the core behavior without extraneous details. It is concise and to the point, covering the essential functionality.

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 search tool, the description provides enough context to understand what it does. It does not specify the exact return format or ordering, but given the absence of an output schema, this is a minor gap. The description is adequate for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 mentions 'up to 50' which hints at the limit parameter but does not fully explain its semantics beyond the schema's maximum. It adds little value over the existing query description, and does not compensate for the undocumented limit parameter.

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 states the tool searches rows of a specific dataset (DrawScheduleWorks) for cells containing a query, case-insensitive, with a limit of 50. This distinguishes it from siblings like dataset_row (likely single row retrieval) and dataset_top (top rows without search).

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 implies when to use it (when searching for rows matching a query) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or mention when not to use it. No sibling tools are referenced, so an agent must infer the appropriate context.

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