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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It correctly states that it returns rows, is case-insensitive, and can cap results. It does not mention side effects or privileged operations, but as a search it is implicitly read-only. This is sufficient transparency.

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 one concise sentence that covers the core functionality, case-sensitivity, and result cap. No filler or redundant information. It is well-structured and immediately understandable.

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?

The description gives enough context for an agent to invoke the search correctly, including the matching rule and output limit. There is no output schema, but the description implies the output is rows from the dataset. For a search tool, this is reasonably complete, though specifying the exact output format or data fields would enhance completeness.

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 explains both parameters: 'query' is the text to search for, and 'limit' is implied by 'up to 50'. However, the schema only provides a description for 'query', leaving 'limit' without a dedicated schema description. The tool description partially compensates, but a more explicit parameter breakdown would improve clarity.

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: it returns rows from a dataset that match a query, with case-insensitive matching and an optional limit. This unambiguously distinguishes it from siblings like dataset_row (which likely fetches a specific row) and dataset_stats (which computes statistics).

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 explains the core behavior (search rows for query text) and the limit. While it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, the sibling names are self-explanatory and the search semantics are clear enough for an agent to decide when to use this tool.

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