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 does state case-insensitive matching and the 50-row cap, which are useful behavioral traits. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what happens when no rows match, or the exact structure of returned rows. It adds some context but leaves significant gaps.

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 of 11 words, highly efficient and front-loaded with the resource and core behavior. Every word adds value, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 the essential matching logic and result cap. However, it omits details about the output format (e.g., array of rows, structure of each row) and any sorting or pagination behavior. Given the lack of an output schema, these details would help an agent correctly interpret the response. It is adequate but not 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 only 50% (query has a description, limit does not). The description partially compensates by referencing the query ('contain the query') and the limit ('up to 50'), but does not fully clarify that limit is an optional cap on result count. It adds some meaning beyond the schema but not enough to fully compensate for the undocumented limit parameter.

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 the specific action (search the dataset for rows) with a clear resource (Yieldzo dataset) and the matching condition (cells contain query, case-insensitive). This distinguishes it from siblings like dataset_row (fetch specific row) or dataset_columns (list columns) without needing to inspect their schemas.

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 for text search but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. No mention of exclusions or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling names. The core purpose is clear, but guidance on selection is absent.

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