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

The description richly discloses behavior beyond the annotations: free-tier truncation at 25 rows, 'truncated=true', inclusion of 'next_step' with links and wording, Pro upgrade implications, paging with offset, and summary mode. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavioral context an agent needs.

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 core purpose is front-loaded, and each sentence earns its place: scope, data type restriction, free-tier behavior, next_step guidance, and paging/summary tips. It is dense and slightly longer than strictly necessary, but it is well organized and relevant.

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 read-only query tool with full parameter documentation and no output schema, the description covers the essential results (total count, attribution, truncated flag, next_step), free vs Pro behavior, and paging options. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke 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 100%, with each parameter already well-described (defaults, max, filter key semantics, enum options). The description's 'page with offset' and 'format summary' guidance mostly restates the schema rather than adding new meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Return the rows of a dataset that match a set of filters, with the total count and the attribution to cite.' The added scoping to organisational data and exclusion of personal contact data clearly separates it from list/search sibling tools.

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?

Provides clear operational guidance: 'Page with offset; ask for format "summary" to get counts only', and gives an explicit exclusion ('never personal contact data'). However, it does not name sibling alternatives or say when to prefer query_dataset over search_datasets, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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