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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It explains that rows are selected when the column matches any of the given values and that ordering follows the given values, but it does not mention exact-match semantics, case sensitivity, handling of missing values, or the output shape.

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 concise sentence that packs the core purpose, filtering logic, ordering behavior, and intended use case. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 two-parameter filtering tool, the description provides enough context to understand what the tool does and when to use it. It lacks explicit notes on output format or edge cases, but these are not critical given the simplicity and the absence of an output schema.

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?

The schema provides only types and constraints, with no field descriptions, but the description explains both parameters: 'column' is the field to match and 'values' is the list of allowed values. The 'any of' wording clarifies that this is an OR-style filter, and 'in the order given' clarifies ordering semantics.

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 indicates that the tool retrieves rows from the Patientvo dataset based on matching a column against a list of values, and the title adds the side-by-side comparison intent. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like dataset_row or dataset_top because it selects multiple rows by specific column values.

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' gives some guidance on when to use the tool, and the 'any of the given values' wording implies comparing multiple specific values. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as dataset_search or dataset_row, so the guidance is present but not fully explicit.

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