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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does add useful context: case-insensitive matching and a 50-row limit, which are not in the schema. However, it omits details about return format, pagination, or what happens with no matches, so it only partially covers the behavioral profile.

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, focused sentence with no redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose and adds two key constraints (case-insensitive, up to 50) without excess.

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 with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential behavior but leaves gaps: it doesn't specify the output structure (whether it returns full rows, column names, etc.) or error/empty-result behavior. It is adequate for a basic call but not fully complete.

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 coverage is 50% (query is described, limit is not). The description adds meaning by clarifying that the query is matched case-insensitively and that results are capped at 50, which relates to the limit parameter. However, it does not explicitly explain each parameter, and the limit's meaning is only implied through the cap.

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 the tool's function: returning rows of the Proofzo dataset that contain the query, with case-insensitivity and a cap of 50. It identifies the specific resource and action, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like dataset_row or dataset_top, which is why it doesn't reach a 5.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is the tool for searching across all cells, nor does it rule out scenarios where a sibling like dataset_row might be more appropriate. The usage context is only implied by the tool's name and description.

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