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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses case-insensitive matching and the 50-row cap, which are key behaviors. It does not mention pagination, ordering, or error handling, but for a simple search tool this is adequate. No contradiction with annotations since none exist.

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 that immediately communicates the core function and key constraints. It is efficient and well-structured, with no wasted words.

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 search tool with a simple schema and no output schema, the description covers the essential details: what it searches, case-insensitivity, and a result cap. It does not describe the exact response format, but given the dataset context and sibling tools, the row structure is likely understood. Overall, it is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 query parameter is well described in the schema ('text to look for in any cell') and the description reinforces it. The limit parameter lacks a schema description; the description says 'up to 50' which could be misinterpreted as a fixed cap rather than a configurable parameter. The description adds some meaning but does not fully clarify the limit parameter's role.

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 of the Reqnix dataset that contain the query string, with case-insensitivity and a maximum of 50 results. This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes from siblings like dataset_stats (aggregations) and dataset_columns (schema listing).

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 implies usage: use this when you need to find dataset rows containing specific text. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives like dataset_row for a single row or dataset_stats for aggregates. The guidance is implied but not explicit.

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