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

The description does not disclose any side effects, permissions, or read-only guarantees. Since annotations are empty, the description carries full responsibility. It mentions a result limit but does not state the absence of side effects or the nature of the operation (e.g., read-only).

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, concise sentence that immediately communicates the core functionality. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, with no redundant details or filler.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool, the description is mostly sufficient. It specifies the search criterion, case-insensitivity, and result cap. However, it omits details like default limit behavior, sorting, or error handling, which could be relevant but are not critical for a basic search operation.

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?

Only one of two parameters (query) has a description in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning; it repeats the schema's 'text to look for in any cell'. The 'limit' parameter is completely undocumented, and the description's 'up to 50' hint is not explicitly linked to it.

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 searches rows of the Requly dataset for cells containing the query, case-insensitive, and returns up to 50 results. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like dataset_row (single row) or dataset_stats (aggregate data).

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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios where search is preferred over other operations, nor does it specify any prerequisites or limitations beyond the basic functionality.

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