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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully reveals matching semantics ('any of the given values') and ordering ('in the order given'), but it does not describe the return format, limits, or how 'compare side by side' is actually rendered.

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, front-loaded with the resource and operation, with the use case appended. Every phrase earns its place and there is no redundant filler.

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 two-parameter retrieval tool, the description is mostly sufficient: it says which rows are returned and in what order. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the lack of any detail about the output structure or side-by-side representation leaves some ambiguity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the bare schema. It does clarify that 'column' is the field to match against and 'values' are the matching values whose order determines output order. It still omits details like case sensitivity and missing-value behavior, but the basics are covered.

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 operation: return rows from the Attestroom dataset whose column matches any of the given values, in the order given. It also names its intended use case, 'X vs Y' questions, making it easy to distinguish from siblings like dataset_row or dataset_search.

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 'for X vs Y questions' phrase gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate, and the value-matching semantics distinguish it from single-row or search tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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