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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behaviors: filtering by column equality, returning rows, and preserving the order of the given values. However, it does not mention safety (read-only nature), pagination, limits, or behavior when no rows match, leaving gaps for a tool without annotation support.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core behavior and usage context with no wasted words. The key scoping detail ('in the order given') appears before the trailing usage note.

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?

The tool is simple with only two parameters and no output schema, but the description does not hint at the return format or edge cases (e.g., empty results). While adequate for straightforward invocation, an agent might need more detail about what 'rows side by side' actually returns.

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 successfully explains the role of both parameters: 'column' is the field to filter on, and 'values' are the values to match, with the order of values being significant. It adds meaning beyond the bare schema types and constraints.

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 what the tool does: it returns rows from the Depreo dataset where the specified column matches any of the given values, preserving the order of values. This is a specific behavior that distinguishes compare from row-level and search siblings, though the verb 'returns' is implied rather than explicit.

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 usage context, but it does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use this tool. The guidance is implied rather than a structured when-to-use/when-not-to-use comparison with sibling tools.

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