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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It does disclose key behavior: rows are filtered to those whose column value is any of the given values, and the order of results follows the order of the provided values. This is meaningful but does not mention output format, handling of missing matches, or any read-only assurance, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the core behavior and includes a practical usage hint. Every phrase earns its place, with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 retrieval tool, the description covers the matching semantics, ordering, and intended comparison use case. It does not describe the output shape or edge cases, but the absence of an output schema makes those less critical for this tool's apparent simplicity.

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 clarify parameter meaning. It does explain that 'column' is the dataset column to match against and 'values' are the values used for matching, with order preserved. This adds semantics beyond the raw schema types and min/max 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 states that the tool returns rows from the Requly dataset filtered by a column matching any of the given values, in the order provided. This clearly identifies the resource and the filtering behavior, and the 'X vs Y questions' phrase helps distinguish it from sibling tools like dataset_search or dataset_top. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'return' or 'list', relying on the title to complete the action.

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 'for X vs Y questions' note gives an implied usage context, suggesting the tool is meant for comparing specific values side by side. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings like dataset_row or dataset_search, nor when not to use it. 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.