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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden itself. It discloses that the match is case-insensitive, that any cell can match, and that results are capped at 50. It does not describe output shape or ordering, but the key operational traits of this search tool are present.

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, compact sentence with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded and the two modifiers ('case-insensitive', 'up to 50') are high-value constraints that an agent needs before calling 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, the description covers matching behavior, case sensitivity, and the result cap. It does not provide an output schema or detail the exact return structure, but 'Rows' plus the simple domain gives an agent enough to invoke it 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?

The query parameter is described in the schema and the description adds the case-insensitive matching behavior. However, the limit parameter has no schema description, and while 'up to 50' hints at a cap, it does not explicitly clarify that limit controls the number of returned rows or what the default behavior is.

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 names a specific behavior: returning rows of the Duesvo dataset whose cells contain the query. It also adds precise details (case-insensitive, up to 50 results) that separate it from sibling tools like dataset_columns, dataset_stats, and dataset_top.

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 the tool is for substring-based cell search, so an agent can infer the basic use case. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over dataset_row, dataset_top, or other siblings, nor does it state any exclusions or alternative conditions.

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