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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses case-insensitive matching and a result cap ('up to 50'), but says nothing about ordering, pagination, permissions, or whether the operation is read-only — all of which an agent would want for a search tool.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the resource and matching semantics, with zero filler. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.

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 two-parameter search with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers matching semantics and result size but omits return shape details (beyond 'rows'), ordering, and pagination behavior. Adequate but clearly incomplete.

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 documented but 'limit' has no schema description. The description partially compensates by stating the 50-row ceiling, but that bound is already in the schema (maximum: 50), so it adds little for 'limit' beyond restating the constraint.

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?

Specific verb (return/search rows) and resource (Rechner HQ dataset) with the matching rule stated. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like dataset_row, dataset_top, or dataset_compare, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The agent gets no cue for choosing this over dataset_row or dataset_top, and no exclusions or preconditions are stated.

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