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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful behavioral traits: matching is on 'any of the given values' and output order follows the input order. However, it does not mention edge cases like no matches, exact-match semantics, or whether the operation is read-only, though the wording implies retrieval.

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 efficient sentence packs the resource, filtering logic, ordering behavior, and usage context with no filler. The most important information appears first.

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 2-parameter read-oriented query tool, the description gives enough to call it correctly: what rows are returned, how parameters map to behavior, and the expected order. It does not describe the output format, but no output schema exists and the title ('Compare rows side by side') partially covers that. Minor gaps remain around empty results and exact matching.

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. It does: 'whose column is any of the given values' clarifies that `column` is the field to match and `values` are the accepted cell values, while 'in the order given' explains how the `values` array order affects output. This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 behavior: returning rows of the CoilDesk dataset filtered by a column matching any of the given values, preserving the given order. It also explains the intended use ('X vs Y' questions), which distinguishes it 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 phrase 'for "X vs Y" questions' gives clear context for when to use this tool: comparing specific row values side by side. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is specific enough to guide selection among siblings.

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