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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavior. It does mention that the search is case-insensitive and that results are limited to 50, which gives some transparency. However, it does not specify what happens when no rows match, how the rows are ordered, or whether the search spans all columns, leaving some behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 concise and to the point, consisting of a single sentence that effectively captures the core functionality, the case-insensitivity, and the maximum result count. There is no redundant information or verbosity.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (no output schema, no nested structures), the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand what the tool does and what its parameters are. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning the return format or error behavior, but these are not critical for a simple search operation and are typically inferred.

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 overall description clarifies query's role but only implies limit's purpose via 'up to 50'. Since schema coverage is 50% (only query described), the description adds some value by explaining the limit as a cap, but it does not fully elaborate on how limit interacts with the search (e.g., whether it applies after all matches are found).

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 that the tool returns rows from the Mustvo dataset whose cells contain the query, which conveys the search functionality. It implicitly differentiates itself from sibling tools like dataset_row (which fetches a specific row) and dataset_top (which returns top rows without a search). However, the verb 'search' is only implied, not explicitly stated, making it slightly less direct.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this should be used for text searching or that it is inappropriate for other tasks like fetching specific rows or getting statistics. The only hint is the search condition and the limit, but there is no explicit 'use this when...' or 'instead of...'.

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