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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses case-insensitive matching, the 50-row cap, and that it searches any cell. It does not mention pagination, ordering, or what happens when more than 50 rows match, which would be useful for a search tool.

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 sentence that front-loads the dataset name and the core search behavior, then adds the case-insensitivity and limit. Every word earns its place; no filler or repetition.

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 search tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks details about result ordering, pagination, and behavior when the limit is exceeded. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, a bit more context would make it fully complete.

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%: the 'query' parameter is described in the schema, but 'limit' is not. The description adds the 'up to 50' cap, which partially explains the limit parameter, but it does not clarify that limit is optional or how it interacts with the cap. The description adds some value but does not 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 states a specific verb ('search'), a resource ('Sell My Business Quotes dataset'), and a clear behavior: return rows whose cells contain the query, case-insensitive, up to 50. It is clear and distinct from siblings like dataset_row or dataset_stats, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 tool to find rows by cell content. It does not explicitly state when to prefer dataset_row, dataset_top, or dataset_columns, nor does it mention exclusions. The 'up to 50' limit is a useful constraint, but no alternative routing is provided.

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