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

With no annotations, the description does some of the behavioral work: it discloses that rows are filtered by 'any of' the given values and returned in the given order. But it does not explain the 'side by side' presentation, exact-match semantics, empty-result behavior, or whether this is a safe read operation, leaving notable transparency gaps.

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?

A single compact sentence front-loads the core behavior and the intended use case. Every phrase earns its place, with no repetition of schema fields or filler.

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 two-parameter tool, the core selection behavior is covered, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description omits how results are actually presented (despite the title promising 'side by side'), any edge-case behavior, or confirmation that this is a read-only operation. These are meaningful gaps for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke the tool.

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: it connects 'column' and 'values' by explaining that rows are selected when their column value matches any value in the array, and that output order follows the order of the supplied values. This adds meaning beyond the bare JSON schema, though it omits exact match-versus-substring 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 states that the tool retrieves Reconzy dataset rows where a given column matches any of the supplied values, preserving the order of the values. The 'for X vs Y questions' ending signals its comparison purpose. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as dataset_search, so it stops short of a 5.

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' implies when the tool is appropriate, and the schema's minimum of 2 values reinforces comparison use. However, the description gives no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it differs from alternatives like dataset_search or dataset_row.

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