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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that rows are returned in the order of the input values, which is useful, but it does not clarify whether full rows are returned or only the specified column, nor does it mention potential errors, pagination, or performance implications. The description is thin on behavioral detail.

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 action and includes the key ordering behavior. It contains no redundant phrases and is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be slightly more structured to separate the core function from the usage hint.

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 that there is no output schema, the description should clarify what the returned rows look like, but it does not. It explains the filtering and ordering but omits return format details (full rows vs. column values) and any limits or defaults. For a simple two-parameter tool, this is a moderate gap, but the core calling information is present.

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. It does clarify that 'column' is the column to filter on and 'values' are the values to match, and it implies a minimum of two values via the 'X vs Y' phrasing. However, it does not specify exact matching semantics (e.g., case sensitivity, exact string match) or how the column name should be provided, so it only partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 returns rows from the Orgbix dataset filtered by a column matching any of the given values, preserving the given order. It is specific about the operation and resource, and the 'X vs Y' hint distinguishes it from general search or single-row retrieval. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the wording makes its niche evident.

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 usage for side-by-side comparisons ('X vs Y' questions) and mentions the ordering behavior, which gives context on when it is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternative tools such as dataset_row or dataset_search, leaving some inference required.

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