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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose key behavior: rows are filtered by exact value matching on a column, and the output follows the order of the provided values. It does not discuss edge cases like missing values or the exact output format, but for a simple read-style lookup tool the core behavior is transparent.

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, information-dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the result, then adds the key ordering detail and the practical use case, making every word earn its place.

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 tool with only two simple required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: what is returned, how filtering works, how ordering works, and when to use it. It leaves minor gaps around edge cases and return representation, but these are not critical for invoking the tool correctly.

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 compensate. It does by explaining that 'column' is the field to match against and 'values' are the set of values to match, with their order determining output order. This adds real semantic meaning beyond the schema, which only declares types and constraints.

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 operation: return rows from the Rapportvo dataset where the specified column matches any of the given values, preserving the given order. The title 'Compare rows side by side' and the 'X vs Y' qualifier help distinguish it from generic search or row-lookup siblings, though it does not explicitly name a sibling to differentiate from.

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 gives a clear usage context: this is for 'X vs Y' comparison questions, meaning the agent should use it when it has specific column values to compare side by side. It does not mention alternative tools or exclusion criteria, but the intended use case is reasonably clear.

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