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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It says rows are returned in the given order for matching values, but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, how results are formatted, or what happens when no values match.

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 brief and contains no filler. It communicates the main selection rule and ordering behavior in one sentence, though the grammar is slightly awkward.

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 has no output schema and no parameter descriptions, so the description should provide enough context for an agent to know what is returned and how to call it safely. It gives the selection rule but omits return format, edge cases, and explicit relationship to sibling tools.

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 description maps 'column' and 'values' by saying 'whose column is any of the given values', and it mentions ordering. However, schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain constraints like minimum/maximum values, string types, or how values should be formatted.

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 title 'Compare rows side by side' and description clearly indicate the tool retrieves rows from the PerDiemDesk dataset for given column values, which distinguishes it from sibling tools that search, summarize, or list columns. The phrase 'for "X vs Y" questions' adds useful intent context.

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 comparison questions but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like dataset_row, dataset_search, or dataset_top. No alternative guidance or selection criteria are provided.

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