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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that matching is case-insensitive, that query text is matched across cell contents, and that results are capped at 50 rows. It implicitly presents the operation as a read-only search, though it does not mention ordering, empty results, or response format.

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 entire description is one sentence with no filler. It front-loads the operative behavior and key constraints, packing the predicate, case-insensitivity, and row cap into a compact, scannable form.

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 with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns (matching rows) and the main operational constraints. The only gaps are the default limit when the parameter is omitted and result ordering, which are minor for correctly invoking the tool.

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 already documents query as 'text to look for in any cell', while limit has only type and bounds. The description adds that matching is case-insensitive and containment-based across all cells, and that 'up to 50' clarifies the limit parameter's purpose beyond its numeric maximum.

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 a specific selection predicate: rows whose cells contain the query, with case-insensitive matching and a 50-row cap. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like dataset_row (single-row retrieval) and dataset_stats (aggregate statistics). The title reinforces the search intent.

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 this is for content-based search across all dataset cells, and the sibling names make adjacent operations visible. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it or what prerequisites apply.

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