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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly explains the matching semantics ('column is any of the given values') and the ordering behavior ('in the order given'), which is valuable beyond the schema. It does not mention output format or edge cases, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 sentence communicates the resource, filtering logic, ordering, and intended use case without any filler. It is compact and front-loaded.

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 is simple with only two parameters and no output schema. The description explains what is returned (rows), how they are filtered, and in what order, which is largely complete for an agent to invoke it correctly. Minor gaps such as exact-match semantics or output shape exist, but the core is well covered.

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. It clarifies that 'column' is the field being matched and 'values' are the values to match, and that row ordering follows the values list ordering. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare 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 clear operation: retrieve rows from the Lobbyvo dataset where a column matches any of the provided values, preserving the given order. This is specific and informative, though it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling 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 "for X vs Y questions" phrase gives a clear use-case context, signaling that this tool is for side-by-side comparisons of specific values. It does not mention exclusions or alternative sibling tools, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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