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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the matching mode (case-insensitive substring containment) and the maximum result count ('up to 50'). It does not mention result ordering, whether all columns are returned, the default limit when omitted, or behavior when there are no matches.

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, front-loaded sentence: it names the resource first, then the containment condition, case-sensitivity, and cap. There is zero filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 two parameters, this is minimally viable: an agent knows what is searched and the row cap. However, with no output schema, it should clarify whether returned rows include all columns and how results are ordered; it also leaves the default limit ambiguous. These gaps matter for correctly invoking and parsing the tool.

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 description adds 'case-insensitive' to the query parameter, which the schema only describes as 'text to look for in any cell'—this is genuinely new semantic meaning. It also clarifies that the limit parameter caps returned rows at 50, giving purpose to a parameter with no schema description. It stops short of specifying the default limit when not provided.

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 states a specific operation: it returns rows from the PTOroom dataset where any cell contains the query, case-insensitively, capped at 50. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like dataset_row, dataset_stats, and dataset_top without needing to inspect their schemas.

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 about when to choose this tool over dataset_row, dataset_columns, or dataset_top. The description implies full-cell search but does not explicitly state alternative conditions or exclusions, so an agent must infer usage solely from the name.

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