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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the matching semantics ('any of the given values') and that output order follows the values order. However, it omits important behavioral details such as exact-match/case sensitivity, handling of missing or duplicate values, and the shape of the returned rows.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the core behavior and ending with a concise usage cue. Every part earns 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 two-parameter read-style tool with no output schema, the description covers the core semantics, parameter roles, ordering behavior, and intended use case. It could be more complete with explicit differentiation from sibling tools like dataset_search or dataset_row, but it is essentially sufficient for correct invocation.

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 defines both parameters in context: 'column' is the field to match and 'values' are the allowed matching values whose order controls the output. This adds real meaning beyond the raw parameter names and schema 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 a specific operation: return rows from the Rotazo dataset where a column matches any provided values, preserving the given order. The title adds a clear comparison intent, and the 'X vs Y' framing distinguishes it conceptually from general search or single-row tools, though it does not explicitly name a sibling.

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" provides a clear context for when this tool is appropriate, namely comparing rows side by side. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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