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 core ranking behavior and the ability to get highest or lowest rows, but does not mention limit defaults, tie handling, behavior on non-numeric columns, or the exact shape of returned data.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the action and resource immediately, then adds a brief, useful usage example. No wasted words or redundant restatements of the tool name.

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, but there is no output schema and no annotations, so the description needs to explain return values and edge behavior. It says 'rows' are returned, which helps, but it omits the default limit and what happens with invalid or non-numeric input, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 low at 33%, and the description partially compensates by clarifying that the column should be numeric and that 'lowest' maps to ascending order. However, the 'limit' parameter is not explained at all, and the description does not fully document how the parameters combine.

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 the tool returns the highest or lowest rows of the Fitouto dataset based on a numeric column, with the natural-language question 'which is the most/least X.' This clearly conveys the core purpose and mostly distinguishes it from siblings like dataset_row or dataset_stats, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 description implies when to use the tool: when you want the rows with the most or least values of a numeric column. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tools might be better for related tasks.

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