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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention case-insensitivity and a limit of 50, which are useful. However, it does not explain return format, ordering, pagination behavior, or error handling when no matches are found. These gaps are notable but the core behavior is disclosed.

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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the core action and constraints. There is zero redundancy or filler, and it conveys all essential information efficiently.

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 covers the essential behavior (matching rows, limit) but omits details like result ordering, pagination, and what happens with zero matches. It is adequate for basic use but not exhaustive, which is expected given the tool's simplicity.

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 provides a description for 'query' (text to look for in any cell) but not for 'limit'. The description adds the meaning of the limit (up to 50) and reinforces case-insensitivity. Since schema coverage is only 50%, the description partially compensates by clarifying the limit, but does not add further detail about either parameter.

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 action: returning rows from a specific dataset (MowRouteWorks) where any cell contains the query, with case-insensitivity and a limit of 50. This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like dataset_row (single row) or dataset_stats (statistics).

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 it (when you need to find rows containing certain text) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like dataset_top or dataset_row. The usage context is inferred rather than stated, so it's adequate but not fully explicit.

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