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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does disclose useful semantics: matching is by 'any of' the given values and output order follows the given values. It does not, however, describe the returned structure, side-by-side formatting, or any limitations such as duplicate handling.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the resource and action, then adds the key behavioral detail about ordering and the intended comparison use case.

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 explains what rows are returned, how matching works, and the ordering behavior. It does not fully address output formatting or edge cases, but the scope is modest and the core information is present.

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, and it largely does: 'column' is the field to match on and 'values' are the values used for matching, with order affecting output order. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare property names 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 operation: selecting rows from the Hydrantly dataset whose column matches given values, in a specified order, and ties it to 'X vs Y' comparison questions. This is clear and useful, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools or contrast itself with them.

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 implied guidance about when to use the tool, and the ordering requirement suggests a comparison-oriented use case. However, there is no explicit statement about when not to use it or which alternative tool should be chosen instead.

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