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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose one important behavior: rows are returned in the order of the supplied values. It remains silent on other behaviors such as exact-match semantics, handling of duplicate values, empty results, and output shape, but as a read-only filter tool this is less critical.

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, compact sentence with no unnecessary detail. The typo 'Dsarvo' and the slightly awkward noun-phrase structure prevent a perfect score, but every phrase contributes meaning.

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 tool, the description gives enough to construct a correct call: it identifies the dataset, the filtering column, the values, and ordering semantics. It does not specify the output format or edge cases (e.g., missing values), and there is no output schema to fill that gap, so the completeness is moderate.

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?

The description maps 'column' and 'given values' to the two parameters, but mostly repeats their names. It adds the semantic that the order of values determines the output row order, and that any match (OR) qualifies. However, with 0% schema coverage, it does not compensate for all missing parameter details (e.g., no explanation of min/max constraints beyond the 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 clearly identifies the resource (the Dsarvo dataset) and the operation: returning rows where a given column matches any of the provided values, preserving the given order. It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing 'X vs Y' comparison questions, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'compares'.

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 use case: comparing specific rows side by side. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention sibling alternatives, leaving the routing decision mostly to inference.

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