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 specifies case-insensitive matching, a maximum of 50 rows, and that any cell is searched. It does not mention sorting, pagination, or handling of no matches, but the core behaviors are transparent. Given the absence of annotations, this is a solid disclosure.

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 that immediately states the primary function and constraints. Every phrase adds value: the dataset name, the search behavior, case-insensitivity, and the limit. No fluff or redundancy.

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 simple 2-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it searches, how it matches, and the limit. It does not explain return format or edge cases like no results, but given the tool's simplicity, these are minor omissions. Overall, it is adequate for an agent to call correctly.

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 description coverage is 50%: only 'query' has a description ('text to look for in any cell'), while 'limit' has none. The tool description reinforces the query semantics (case-insensitive, any cell) but does not explain the 'limit' parameter's behavior beyond the schema's min/max. It adds some value for query but not enough to fully compensate for the missing limit description.

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: returning rows of the Rollupvo dataset where any cell contains the query, case-insensitive, up to 50 rows. This is specific with a clear verb ('rows... contain'), a resource (dataset), and a constraint (limit), which distinguishes it from siblings like dataset_row (likely a specific row) or dataset_stats.

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 for content-based searching but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings or mention exclusions. It lacks guidance on alternatives, such as using dataset_row for a known row ID or dataset_top for top rows, and does not clarify whether it is the only way to filter by content.

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