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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal important behavior: exact column-value matching ('any of the given values') and output ordering ('in the order given'). However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, how rows are returned, or how edge cases 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?

The description is a single sentence that packs the resource, filter condition, ordering behavior, and use-case context with no filler. It is front-loaded and every phrase adds meaningful information.

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 selection tool, the description conveys the essential filtering and ordering semantics and identifies the output as rows. Since there is no output schema, the description's 'rows...' phrasing covers the return type, though row projection and edge-case behavior remain unspecified.

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 is the only semantic source for the parameters. It explains that 'column' is the field to match and 'values' are the allowed cell values, and it adds the important ordering behavior. It does not detail case-sensitivity or duplicate handling, preventing a perfect score.

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 identifies the resource (rows of the Disclovo dataset) and the filtering behavior (rows whose column matches any given values) with the order-preserving detail. It clearly signals comparison use via 'X vs Y' questions, but it lacks an explicit action verb like 'returns' or 'compares', so it stops short of a 5.

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 situational context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, such as when to use dataset_row or dataset_search instead, so it does not fully meet the top tier.

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