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

The description reveals key behavior: it returns rows that contain the query (case-insensitive) and limits results to 50. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or if any side effects occur, and no annotations are provided to clarify. This leaves some behavioral aspects implicit.

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 succinct and directly to the point, capturing the essential functionality in a single sentence. No redundant words or unnecessary details are present.

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 search operation, the description provides sufficient context: it specifies the dataset, the matching criterion, case sensitivity, and the result cap. Since there is no output schema, it does not need to explain return formats, and edge cases like empty results or error handling are not critical for this context.

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 query parameter has a clear schema description ('text to look for in any cell'), but the limit parameter lacks a schema description. The tool description mentions 'up to 50,' which partially clarifies the limit's purpose, but the meaning of the limit parameter itself is still not fully explicit.

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 specifies the action (search), the resource (PerDiemDesk dataset), and the scope (rows whose cells contain the query, case-insensitive, up to 50). It does not explicitly name a sibling tool to distinguish itself, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (e.g., dataset_columns, dataset_stats). Usage must be inferred from the tool's name and description, but no conditional advice or alternative selection criteria are given.

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