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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only search operation with no side effects, and mentions the limit behavior, but it does not explicitly state read-only status, failure modes (e.g., empty results), or output format. This is adequate but not fully 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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that communicates the essential behavior without unnecessary detail. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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, the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. It lacks an explicit output schema description, but that is not required since the tool's purpose and parameters are clearly defined. Omitting details like empty-result handling is acceptable for this complexity level.

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 description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it clarifies that the query is matched case-insensitively and that the limit parameter caps results at 50. This enhances understanding of both parameters, though it does not specify default limit behavior or edge cases.

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: searching rows of the Take-Home Compass dataset for a case-insensitive query across cells, returning up to 50 results. It distinguishes from sibling tools like dataset_row (fetch specific row) and dataset_top (top rows), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 on when to use the tool (when you need to find rows containing a text query) and specifies case-insensitive matching and a limit, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions. Still, the sibling tool names make the use case clear.

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