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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It conveys the core behavior—filtering rows and preserving order—but does not clarify exact-match semantics, case sensitivity, error behavior, or explicitly state that this is a read-only operation. The read-only nature is only implied by the wording.

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 tight sentence with no wasted words. The front-loaded behavior is followed by a short purpose clause that adds orienting context without bloating the definition.

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 retrieval tool with no output schema, the description provides enough to invoke it correctly: the filter column, the values to match, the ordering, and the comparison use case. It does not discuss matching nuances or alternatives, but those are not essential for basic usage.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining that 'column' is the filter field and 'values' are the values to match, with output order following the provided values. It does not restate the min/max constraints, but those are already visible 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 verb and resource: it returns rows of the Funnelvo dataset filtered by a column matching any of the given values, preserving the given order. The 'X vs Y' framing makes the intended comparison purpose clear and helps distinguish it from related dataset tools.

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 gives clear context: use this tool when comparing rows for 'X vs Y' questions based on a specific column and a list of values. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the intended scenario is evident.

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