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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that rows are returned in the order of the given values, which is a specific behavioral trait beyond the schema. However, it does not state whether all matching rows are returned, how case sensitivity is handled, or any read-only guarantees, leaving gaps in transparency.

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, tightly packed sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the core action and then adds the purpose, making it easy for an agent to scan and understand.

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 simple tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, how the parameters relate, and the ordering behavior. It omits edge cases like empty results or error handling, but given the tool's low complexity and the lack of annotations, it is reasonably complete.

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 so effectively: 'column' is the field to filter on, 'values' are the list of values to match, and it clarifies that row order follows the order of 'values'. This adds meaningful semantics that the schema alone does not convey.

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's function: it returns rows from the Orgplanly dataset where a specified column matches any of a given set of values, preserving the order of those values. The phrase 'for "X vs Y" questions' gives a concrete use case that distinguishes it from siblings like dataset_row (single row) or dataset_search (broader search).

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 hints at usage with 'for "X vs Y" questions', indicating a comparison scenario, but it does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool or recommend alternatives. It lacks exclusions or references to sibling tools, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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