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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully notes case-insensitive matching, cell-level containment, and the 50-row cap. It does not mention return structure, ordering, or behavior when no matches are found, leaving some gaps for a tool with no annotation support.

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 conveys the core behavior, scope, case sensitivity, and result cap. It is tightly written with no filler, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential semantics needed to call it correctly. It could mention result format or no-match behavior, but these are less critical given the low complexity and the presence of sibling tools that likely handle distinct operations.

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 only 50%, and the description partially compensates by clarifying that query is searched case-insensitively across cells and that results are capped at 50. It does not explicitly explain the limit parameter's role beyond the cap, which is already in the schema maximum, so added value is moderate.

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 returns rows from the Fitouto dataset that contain the query in any cell, with case-insensitive matching. It is specific about the resource and operation, though it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like dataset_top or dataset_stats.

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 intended use is fairly obvious from the name and description: search the dataset for cell values. However, there is no explicit statement about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as dataset_top or dataset_columns, and no exclusions are mentioned.

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