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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It helpfully discloses the matching semantics (any of the values = inclusion/OR) and that output order follows the given values, which is genuine behavioral info. It omits limits such as max 10 values, behavior on no matches, and any output shape.

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 with no filler; the selection semantics come first and the question-type hint last. It is efficient, though arguably too terse given zero schema-coverage support.

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 2-parameter read tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers selection semantics and ordering adequately. It leaves gaps around return format, value-count limits, and edge cases like nonexistent columns.

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 implies the meaning of both params: 'column' is the field to match and 'values' are the match targets, OR-combined and order-sensitive. It does not mention the 2-10 item bounds present in 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 states a specific retrieval behavior: rows of the Excurvo dataset whose column matches any of the given values, returned in the given order. The 'for X vs Y questions' clause signals intent. It distinguishes itself from dataset_search by emphasizing order preservation, though it never names siblings explicitly.

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 an implied usage context, which is a real cue. However, it never says when to use this over dataset_row or dataset_search, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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