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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does disclose case-insensitive substring matching and the 50-row limit, which are meaningful behavioral traits. It does not mention result ordering, default limit behavior, or explicitly state that the operation is read-only.

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 dense sentence conveys the dataset, the matching rule, the case sensitivity behavior, and the result cap. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 two-parameter search tool, the description is largely complete: an agent knows what to match, how matching behaves, and the maximum result size. It falls slightly short by not describing the default when limit is omitted, result ordering, or the returned row structure, especially since there is no output schema.

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 documents query as 'text to look for in any cell'. The description adds case-insensitive matching and the 50-row cap, but it does not explain how the optional limit parameter maps to that cap or whether 50 is the default. With only 50% schema description coverage, this is partial compensation.

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 states a precise behavior: returning rows of the Orgbix dataset whose cells contain the query, with case-insensitive matching and a 50-row cap. This is a specific verb-resource pairing and clearly separates search from sibling tools like dataset_stats, dataset_top, or dataset_row.

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 is implied by the matching behavior, but there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. Sibling tools such as dataset_row, dataset_stats, and dataset_compare are not mentioned as alternatives.

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