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-insensitivity and a 50-row cap, but does not describe the output structure, pagination, or whether the 50 limit is a default or a hard maximum beyond the parameter. It doesn't state read-only behavior, but that is implied. There is no contradiction with annotations because none exist.

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 sentence that front-loads the dataset name and immediately states the core behavior. There is zero waste; every word adds value.

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, the description is adequate: it tells what the search does, the case sensitivity, and the limit. However, there is no output schema, so the description doesn't explain the returned row structure or any additional details like sorting or error handling. Given the low complexity, this is acceptable but could be enhanced with a note on return format.

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 50% (only query has a description). The description adds the 'up to 50' limit, which relates to the limit parameter but doesn't explicitly say it's configurable or how to use it. It doesn't clarify that limit is optional or how it interacts with the query. This is moderate compensation for the missing schema 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?

The description clearly states it returns rows of the Partnro dataset where cells contain the query, case-insensitive, with a limit of 50. This verb+resource+behavior is unambiguous and differentiates it from siblings like dataset_row (specific row) and dataset_stats (aggregates).

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 purpose is clear, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives. It implies usage for substring search across cells, but doesn't mention when to prefer dataset_row or dataset_top. No exclusion criteria are given, so an agent must infer usage from the title and description.

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