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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses case-insensitivity and the 50-row cap, which is useful. However, it does not specify result ordering, whether all columns are searched, or whether the operation is read-only (though it is likely inferred). It adds some behavioral context but not exhaustive transparency.

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 sentence that is efficient and front-loaded with the core behavior, then adds key modifiers (case-insensitive, limit). No wasted words.

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 covers what is needed: what it searches, the dataset, and the limit. Minor gaps exist (e.g., default limit behavior, whether all columns are searched), but for an agent to call it correctly, the essentials are present.

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 already describes 'query' as 'text to look for in any cell'. The description adds case-insensitivity for query, which is valuable. However, 'limit' has no schema description, and the tool description only repeats the cap ('up to 50') without explaining its default behavior or that it controls the number of rows returned. Given 50% schema coverage, the description partially compensates but not fully.

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 clear verb (search) and resource (Tenantvo dataset), specifies that it returns rows whose cells match the query, and notes case-insensitivity and a limit. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like dataset_columns 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?

Usage context is implied: this tool is for finding rows by cell content. However, there is no explicit 'when to use this vs. alternatives' guidance, and it does not mention when to avoid it or mention sibling tools as alternatives.

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