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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses case-insensitivity and a 50-row cap, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether any permissions are required, or what happens on no matches. For a search tool, these are notable gaps that could affect agent expectations.

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, well-structured sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core behavior (rows whose cells contain the query) and appends key constraints (case-insensitive, up to 50). 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?

Since there is no output schema, the description should clarify the return format. It says 'Rows' but not whether it returns an array of row objects or their structure. It also does not address pagination beyond the limit. For a simple search tool, this may be adequate, but the lack of return-type details leaves some ambiguity.

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 schema describes 'query' as 'text to look for in any cell', and the description adds that the search is case-insensitive and that up to 50 rows are returned, which clarifies the limit parameter. However, it does not specify the default limit or behavior when no matches are found. With 50% schema coverage, the description partially compensates but leaves some ambiguity.

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 action (search) and resource (Sbarvo dataset rows), with precise behavior: cells containing the query, case-insensitive, up to 50. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like dataset_row (likely index-based) and dataset_stats (statistical), so an agent can confidently select it.

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 provides clear context that this is for finding rows by cell content, which implies its use case. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives, but the purpose is unambiguous enough that an agent can infer when it applies.

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