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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key behaviors: case-insensitive matching, cell-level substring search, and a 50-row cap. However, it does not disclose the output format, default limit, behavior when more than 50 rows match, or what happens if no rows match, which are meaningful gaps for a no-annotation 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It communicates the core search behavior, case-insensitivity, and row cap in minimal space, so every part earns its place.

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 tool, the description gives enough to invoke it with valid parameters, and the schema fills in constraints. However, with no output schema, no annotations, and no usage guidance, the description falls short of fully preparing the agent for the result shape and when to prefer this tool over siblings.

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 exactly 50%: the query parameter is described in the schema, while limit is not. The description adds value by clarifying case-insensitivity for query and stating the 'up to 50' cap, which relates to limit. Still, it does not add meaning for the limit default or whether limit is optional beyond the schema's min/max constraints.

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 identifies the action as returning rows of the RentRollDesk dataset that match the query in any cell, which distinguishes it from column, stats, and row-specific siblings. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' and does not explicitly contrast it with dataset_row or dataset_top, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as dataset_row, dataset_stats, or dataset_columns. It does not state exclusions or provide alternative tool names, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the name alone.

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