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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose case-insensitive matching and a 50-row cap, which are useful. However, it does not mention output format, ordering, pagination, or whether the query is a literal substring, leaving some behavioral uncertainty.

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 description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the main operation ('Rows ... contain the query') and appends key constraints. There is no filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple and the description conveys the core search behavior, resource, case-sensitivity, and result cap. However, without an output schema, it leaves out what the returned rows look like, whether all columns are included, and behavior around the default limit. For a basic search tool this is adequate but not fully complete.

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 describes the 'query' parameter well. The description adds the case-insensitive behavior and a 50-row maximum, which helps clarify 'limit', but the 'limit' parameter itself is not explicitly described as controlling the number of returned rows. With 50% schema coverage, the description partially compensates but does not fully define 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 what the tool does: return rows of the Handovra dataset that contain the query text. Specific behaviors such as case-insensitive matching and the 50-row cap are included, and the search function is clearly distinct from sibling tools like dataset_stats or dataset_columns.

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 when to use the tool: when you need to find dataset rows containing a certain text query. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it, so the guidance is more implicit than explicit.

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