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-insensitive matching and a maximum result count (50), but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the exact return format is (full rows vs. identifiers), or how results are ordered. These are meaningful gaps for a tool with no annotation safety hints.

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 sentence, no fluff, front-loads the key action and constraints. Every word adds information: 'Rows', 'cells contain the query', 'case-insensitive', 'up to 50'. This is an exemplary concise definition.

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 with two parameters and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. An agent knows what to pass and what to expect in general terms. It could improve by noting whether all columns are returned or if there is any ordering, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity and the presence of sibling tools that handle other use cases.

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 with 'text to look for in any cell', and the description adds case-insensitivity. The limit parameter has no schema description, but the description clarifies its meaning as 'up to 50', directly compensating for that gap. The description thus adds value beyond the schema for both parameters.

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 verb 'search' and the specific resource 'Fax Line Index dataset', and it distinguishes itself from siblings like dataset_row (retrieve by index) and dataset_top (top rows) by specifying that it returns rows whose cells contain the query. It also adds useful modifiers (case-insensitive, up to 50) that sharpen the purpose.

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 gives clear context: it is used to find rows matching a text query across all cells. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the purpose is unambiguous enough that an agent can infer it is the go-to tool for content-based search, not for retrieving specific rows or statistics.

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