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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It meaningfully discloses that rows are matched against any of the listed values and are returned in the order given, but it does not state whether results are shown side-by-side, how matching treats exactness or case, or what the response structure looks like.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the resource, the filtering logic, the ordering behavior, and the intended 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 retrieval tool, the description covers the essential invocation logic. However, since there is no output schema and no annotations, it would be more complete if it explicitly described the side-by-side output format hinted at by the title.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does by explaining the relationship between column and values: rows are selected when the column equals any provided value, and the values array controls output ordering. It does not detail string-matching nuances, but the core semantics are present.

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 states what the tool does: it returns rows of the Intakez dataset filtered by a column matching any of the given values, in the supplied order. The 'X vs Y questions' framing distinguishes it from siblings like dataset_row and dataset_search, which serve different retrieval needs.

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 a clear when-to-use signal, and the multi-value ordered inputs imply a comparison-oriented use case. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool.

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