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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal key behaviors: rows are filtered by 'any of the given values' and returned 'in the order given.' However, it does not disclose the return format, whether full rows are returned, case-sensitivity, behavior when no values match, or confirm this is a read-only operation.

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 one sentence and includes only relevant information: dataset, selection logic, ordering, and intended use case. It is concise but structurally awkward, leading with a noun phrase and appending the use case via an em-dash, which slightly reduces clarity.

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?

Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify what the result looks like. It explains when to use the tool and what rows are selected, but not how the comparison is presented (despite the title mentioning 'side by side') nor how edge cases like no matches or invalid column names are handled. This is adequate for tool selection but incomplete for fully interpreting results.

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 explain the parameters itself. It does: 'column' is the dataset column to match against, and 'values' are the candidate values any of which may match. This directly ties both required parameters to the tool's behavior, though it does not elaborate on value formatting or matching precision.

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 the resource (MowRouteWorks dataset rows) and the selection logic (column matches any of the given values, preserving order), which clearly conveys what the tool does. It lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'retrieves', and the phrasing is a noun phrase rather than a complete command, so it is clear but not maximally direct.

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' provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: when comparing specific entities represented as row values. It does not name alternative sibling tools or give exclusion criteria, but the use case is clear enough to route an agent toward this tool.

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