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 discloses the row-selection rule and ordering behavior, plus the 'any of the values' semantics. However, it does not mention whether matching is exact or partial, how missing values are handled, or what the output representation 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?

A single, efficient sentence states the core behavior first and the intended use case second. There is no filler, redundancy, or restating 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?

For a low-complexity tool with two required parameters and no output schema, the description gives enough to call it correctly: which column to use, what values to pass, and what ordering to expect. Minor gaps remain around exact match semantics and output shape, but the core invocation is clear.

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?

The schema provides only parameter names and types with 0% description coverage. The description compensates by explaining that 'column' is the field to match and 'values' are the allowed values, and it adds meaningful ordering semantics tied to the values array.

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 names the exact behavior: return rows of the Kickoffo dataset whose column matches any of the given values, preserving the supplied order. This is specific enough to distinguish it from siblings like dataset_row, dataset_search, and dataset_top without needing their schemas.

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 a clear use case ('X vs Y' questions) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. The sibling names hint at other access modes, but the description gives no direct comparison or exclusion.

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