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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the core behavior: returning rows ordered by highest/lowest values of a numeric column, with no hint of side effects. However, it omits default limit behavior, tie-breaking, and how non-numeric or null values are handled.

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?

One compact sentence with no filler, and the paraphrase 'which is the most/least X' makes the purpose immediately relatable. The core idea is front-loaded and every element earns its place.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It doesn't specify expected row count, default ordering, or return shape, so an agent would still need to infer important invocation details.

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 33%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that `column` must be numeric and implicitly references `ascending` via 'highest (or lowest)', but it never explains `limit` or a default row count, leaving a key parameter semantically under-specified.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('highest (or lowest) rows of the Amortlane dataset by a numeric column'), which clearly identifies a ranking operation. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like dataset_row or dataset_stats, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 gloss 'which is the most/least X' implies the tool is for ordering/top-N questions, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives such as dataset_compare or dataset_stats, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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