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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does convey the key behavior: returning rows filtered by column membership and preserving the given value order. However, it does not describe the output format, exact-match/case-sensitivity behavior, or what happens when no rows match, which leaves 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 compact sentence with no filler. The core selection behavior is front-loaded, and the 'X vs Y' use-case tag earns its place as a routing signal. Every part of the sentence contributes meaning.

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 low-complexity two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains what the tool does, what the inputs mean, and when to use it. The main omissions are return-shape details and edge-case behavior, which are less critical here because the operation is a straightforward row selection.

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: 'column' is the field being filtered on, and 'values' are the set of values whose rows are returned in the given order. The phrase 'is any of the given values' communicates equality semantics beyond what the bare schema property names provide.

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 the operation precisely: it selects rows from the RunbookDesk dataset whose column matches any of the given values, preserving the given order. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like dataset_stats or dataset_top, which obviously do different things. The phrase 'for X vs Y questions' reinforces the intended comparison role.

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 explicitly names the intended use case: 'for X vs Y questions' — i.e., comparing specific rows side by side. It does not mention alternatives or exclusion criteria relative to siblings like dataset_search, but the usage context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool appropriately.

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