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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses case-insensitive matching and row-level granularity, which are meaningful behavioral traits. It does not explicitly say it is read-only or describe ordering, but for a search operation the core behavior is clearly conveyed.

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, tightly constructed sentence that leads with the resource and operation and packs in case-insensitivity and the row limit with zero filler. Every word earns its place.

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 core matching behavior is described, but the description omits important operational details: what fields each returned row contains, the default limit when 'limit' is omitted, and behavior when no rows match. Since there is no output schema, these gaps leave an agent uncertain about the response shape.

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 description coverage is only 50%, and the description contributes little beyond the schema: it restates the query concept ('cells contain the query') but does not explain the 'limit' parameter or how it interacts with the 50 cap. The limit parameter remains semantically empty in both schema and description.

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?

Description uses a specific verb and resource ('search the dataset'), and precisely defines behavior: rows whose cells contain the query, case-insensitive, max 50. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like dataset_row (a single row) and 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 case is implied: full-text search across cells for a given query. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over alternatives like dataset_row or dataset_compare, nor exclusions for when not to use it.

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