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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly reveals case-insensitive matching and a 50-row cap, which are meaningful behavioral traits. However, it does not disclose output format, ordering, or what happens when no rows match, but for a read-only search, this is fairly transparent.

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?

A single, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and key constraints. There is no filler or repetition; every word adds value.

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 is adequate for a simple search tool but leaves gaps: it does not state the default limit when the parameter is omitted, the ordering of results, or whether rows are returned as full objects or just references. With no output schema, these details would help the agent invoke it correctly and interpret results.

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 has a description, limit does not. The description adds 'case-insensitive' (not in schema) and mentions 'up to 50', which hints at the limit parameter but does not explicitly explain how the limit parameter controls the cap. It adds some value but does not fully compensate for the undocumented limit parameter.

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 states a specific verb ('Rows...whose cells contain the query'), identifies the resource (the Retainvo dataset), and adds behavioral specifics (case-insensitive, up to 50). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like dataset_row (which fetches a specific row) and dataset_top (which returns top rows). No tautology or ambiguity.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where dataset_row or dataset_top would be more appropriate. The only context is the search behavior itself, which is implied but not stated as a selection rule.

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