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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses case-insensitive matching and the 50-row limit, but it does not mention pagination, sorting, return format, or whether the operation is read-only. These are gaps, though the basic behavior is clear.

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 compact, front-loaded sentence. It conveys the resource, the matching behavior, case sensitivity, and the result cap with no filler or repetition.

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 straightforward search tool, the description plus schema provides enough to call it correctly: required query, optional limit with constraints, case-insensitive contains semantics, and a 50-row cap. Missing details like the exact return shape and default limit are minor given the simplicity and lack of an output schema.

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 describes the query parameter but leaves limit undocumented. The description partially compensates by explaining query semantics ('cells contain the query', case-insensitive) and the 50-row upper bound. However, it doesn't state the default limit or how limit behaves when omitted.

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 operation: find rows of the Enpso dataset whose cells contain the query. It also specifies case-insensitive matching and a 50-row cap, which distinguishes this from sibling tools like dataset_stats, dataset_columns, and dataset_row.

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?

Usage is implied by the search semantics: use it when you need row-level lookup by cell content. However, it does not explicitly explain when to prefer this over siblings like dataset_row or dataset_top, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives.

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