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 that matching is case-insensitive and limited to 50 rows, but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or side-effect-free. Given the search nature, it is likely safe but not explicitly confirmed.

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 one concise sentence that conveys the core functionality without unnecessary words. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the main action.

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 provides enough context: what it returns, the matching rule, and the row limit. It does not need to explain output format or error handling, given the simplicity. The absence of explicit side-effect info is a minor gap.

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 meaning to both parameters: query is the text to search for in any cell, and limit is the maximum number of rows returned (up to 50). This supplements the schema, especially for limit which has no schema description. Slight room for more explicit parameter behavior.

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 returns rows from the TermsBird dataset that contain the query, which is a specific verb (search/filter) and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like dataset_top (top rows) or dataset_row (single row) by focusing on content matching.

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 when to use (when you need rows matching a text query) but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state prerequisites. It lacks direct guidance like 'use this to search across all cells' but the behavior is sufficiently clear.

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