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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful traits like case-insensitive matching and a 50-row limit, but does not mention return format, ordering, empty-result behavior, or any side effects. These gaps are significant for a tool with no output schema.

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 with zero waste. It states the resource, the operation, the matching behavior, and the result cap efficiently. Every word contributes 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?

For a search tool with no output schema and siblings, the description is incomplete. It does not specify the return structure (e.g., array of row objects), how to handle results beyond 50, or any pagination/ordering details. It also lacks usage context relative to sibling tools, making it only partially complete for an agent to call it 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 coverage is only 50% (query has a description, limit does not). The description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying the query matches any cell and that results are capped at 50. This compensates for the missing limit description and enriches query semantics.

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 searches rows of the Stagenix dataset for a query in any cell, with a limit of 50. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like dataset_row (which likely fetches a specific row) and dataset_top (which returns top rows) by focusing on content-based search.

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 (search for rows containing a query) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like dataset_top or dataset_columns. It lacks exclusionary guidance or mention of specific scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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