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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose case-insensitive matching, cell-level containment, and the 50-row cap, but it does not describe the return shape, default limit behavior, ordering, or what happens with no matches. This is adequate but has clear gaps.

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?

One concise sentence with no filler; the core search behavior, case sensitivity, target resource, and result cap are front-loaded and immediately actionable.

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 two-parameter search tool, the description covers the essential operation, matching semantics, and maximum result size. It lacks an explicit return format and any mention of default limit or empty-result behavior, but the tool's low complexity makes the definition largely sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 query parameter already has a schema description ('text to look for in any cell'), and the description adds the important case-insensitive nuance. The limit parameter has no schema description, and while 'up to 50' hints at its effect, the description does not explicitly define limit's default or how it caps results. With only 50% schema coverage, more compensation would be better.

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 operation—searching the Limslane dataset for rows containing a query—and adds precise matching semantics (case-insensitive, cell containment) and a result cap. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like dataset_stats, dataset_columns, or dataset_row, which serve different retrieval/derivation purposes.

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 behavior is specific enough to imply when to use it: whenever a substring search across cell values is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, so it stops short of a 5, but the context is clear.

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