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 ordering behavior ('in the order given') and the filtering logic, but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what the return format is (e.g., row objects), or edge cases like missing values. The core behavior is clear, but significant behavioral details are absent.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core behavior (which rows are returned and in what order) and then adds a concise usage hint. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 has only 2 parameters and no output schema. The description explains the filter and order but does not specify the return structure (e.g., array of row objects) or handle cases like no matches or invalid column names. For a simple read tool this is adequate but incomplete for an agent that needs to know what to expect in the response.

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 explain parameters. It does: 'column' is the field to filter on, and 'values' are the list of strings to match. It also adds the ordering semantics tied to the values array. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions, though it doesn't elaborate on type constraints (which the schema already provides).

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 the tool fetches rows from the KnownVehicle dataset filtered by a column matching any of the given values, preserving the order of values. This distinguishes it from siblings like dataset_row (single row) or dataset_search (broader search) by its specific filtering and ordering behavior.

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' explicitly indicates when to use this tool: comparing specific values side by side. However, it does not name alternative tools or provide exclusions, leaving some ambiguity for agents deciding between this and dataset_search.

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