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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses that rows are filtered by column membership and ordered by the given values. However, it does not describe the return format, matching semantics like case sensitivity, or any other behavioral caveats.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the resource, filtering behavior, ordering behavior, and intended use case without any filler or repetition.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what inputs mean, what rows are returned, and in what order. Minor gaps exist around the exact structure of returned rows and edge-case behavior, but an agent can invoke the tool correctly based on this description.

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 parameter names. It explains the relationship between 'column' and 'values' by stating that rows are selected when the column equals any value, and that value order determines row order. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema even though it does not restate constraints like minItems/maxItems.

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 specific selection operation: rows of the Attestvio dataset whose column matches any of the given values, in the given order. The title and 'for X vs Y questions' phrase help distinguish it from generic row or search tools, though it lacks an explicit verb.

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 phrase 'for "X vs Y" questions' provides a clear intended use case that differentiates it from more general dataset queries. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the comparison-oriented context is informative enough.

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