site

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior or absence of side effects, though the schema-inspection nature strongly implies no mutations. A score of 3 reflects this missing explicit safety disclosure.

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 two sentences, front-loading the primary return components (columns, numeric flags, row count, provenance banner) before the usage directive. There is no redundancy, and every word adds value.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing all expected return components: columns, numeric indicators, row count, and provenance banner. This is sufficient for an agent to anticipate the result, though the provenance banner's structure remains underspecified.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, making schema coverage trivially 100%. No parameter-specific detail in the description is needed, so the baseline 4 applies without adjustment.

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 tool returns columns, numeric flags, row count, and a provenance banner for the Runsheetly dataset, reinforced by the directive 'Call this first to learn the schema' and the title 'Dataset columns and shape.' The return components are enumerated, though the exact output format is not fully specified.

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?

'Call this first to learn the schema' provides explicit when-to-use guidance, implying it should precede other dataset operations. While it does not enumerate sibling tools, the directive gives adequate routing context to distinguish it from tools like dataset_row or dataset_stats.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that rows are filtered by column values and returned in the order the values are given. It does not, however, describe exact-match semantics, output shape, or how the comparisons are rendered, leaving some behavior unspecified.

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 entire description is one tight sentence with no redundant wording. It front-loads the core behavior and appends only the relevant use-case hint. Every part contributes to understanding the tool.

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?

There is no output schema or annotation, and the description omits the return format, error behavior, and matching semantics. For a simple two-parameter tool this is partially compensated by the clear filter+order description, but an agent still does not know what 'compare rows side by side' actually returns.

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 link 'column' and 'values' to their roles ('whose column is any of the given values') and adds the ordering behavior. Yet it does not clarify whether values must be exact strings, how column names are resolved, or any formatting requirements beyond the 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: returning rows whose column matches any of the supplied values, preserving the given order. It also frames the use case as 'X vs Y' questions, which helps distinguish it from generic dataset search or single-row retrieval, though it does not explicitly name a sibling tool.

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' gives a clear intended context, implying comparison between specific values. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives like dataset_search or dataset_row, so usage 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.

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the content returned (source, date, licence, citation) and the purpose, but doesn't specify the format (e.g., text, structured fields) or any side effects. For a read-only metadata tool, this is sufficient transparency, though it could mention that it returns a summary or text block.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. The first sentence lists exactly what the tool provides, and the second gives the usage context. The most important info is front-loaded, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete enough. It tells the agent what it will get and why to use it. The only minor gap is not specifying the return format, but for a provenance tool this is not critical.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty with 100% coverage, so there is nothing to explain. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds no parameter details because none exist.

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 tool provides provenance metadata: source, computation date, licence, and citation for the Runsheetly dataset. This is distinct from sibling tools like dataset_columns (structure) or dataset_stats (aggregates), so an agent can immediately tell it apart.

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 says 'Read this to attribute a figure correctly,' giving a precise scenario for when to use it. It implies this tool is for citation/attribution purposes, which is a clear use case distinct from data exploration or manipulation.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the case-insensitive matching behavior, which is valuable, but omits details such as whether all matching rows are returned or only the first, what happens with no matches, and the return format. It adds some context but is not comprehensive.

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, focused sentence with no redundant words. The core matching rule is front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly. It is concise without sacrificing essential information.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should fully enable correct invocation. It explains the operation and the matching rule, but does not specify the return cardinality, error behavior, or what the output looks like. These gaps make it incomplete for an agent that needs to handle results, though the core operation is clear.

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 explain the parameters. It mentions 'a column' and 'a value' in relation, implying their roles, but does not explicitly define them as the column name and the exact value to match. The case-insensitive note applies to the value matching, but parameter semantics remain under-explained for an agent with no other context.

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 indicates the tool retrieves rows from the Runsheetly dataset that match an exact, case-insensitive column value. It distinguishes from siblings like dataset_search (likely fuzzy) and dataset_top, though the title says 'a row' while the description says 'rows', introducing minor ambiguity about cardinality.

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?

No guidance is given on when to prefer this tool over its siblings, such as dataset_search for fuzzy matching or dataset_top for aggregated views. The description neither states conditions for use nor mentions alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate choice.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses case-insensitivity and a 50-row cap, but does not explain the return format, default limit behavior, or what happens when no matches are found. This is moderate transparency for a search tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and key constraints, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool and lack of output schema, the description covers the essentials (search behavior, case-insensitivity, cap). However, it omits usage guidance relative to siblings and does not clarify whether the limit is a default or required parameter, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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?

The schema provides a description for 'query' but not for 'limit'. The description's mention of 'up to 50' adds context for the limit parameter and clarifies the search scope across all cells, partially compensating for the 50% schema coverage.

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 tool searches rows of the Runsheetly dataset for cells containing the query, case-insensitive, with a limit of 50. It names the specific resource and behavior, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like dataset_stats or dataset_row which serve different purposes.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (e.g., dataset_columns, dataset_compare). The description does not mention any exclusions or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It honestly discloses that grouping commas and currency symbols are handled and that non-numeric rows are excluded and counted, which are meaningful edge-case behaviors an agent needs to know. It does not describe the exact response shape, but the computed stats themselves are listed.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the result set and then adds the important caveats. Every element earns its place, and there is no redundant or vague 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 simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the tool's purpose, the parameter's semantic constraint, and the data-handling behavior. It would be slightly stronger with an explicit note about output structure or error behavior, but nothing essential for choosing and invoking the tool is missing.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds the key semantic that the column must be numeric and that non-numeric values are excluded, but it does not explain how the column name should be specified, whether it must match dataset_columns exactly, or what happens if the column does not exist.

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 names a specific resource (numeric column of the Runsheetly dataset) and enumerates the exact aggregates computed (count, min, max, mean, median, sum). It clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like dataset_top or dataset_search, which serve different lookup/aggregation purposes.

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 intended use is strongly implied: use this when you need summary statistics for a numeric column. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer sibling tools such as dataset_search or dataset_top, nor any mention of exclusions or prerequisites.

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

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, how ties are handled, what happens with invalid columns, or any other behavioral details beyond the basic ordering intent.

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 brief, directly to the point, and includes a helpful query-phrase example. No unnecessary words or redundant content.

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?

The description conveys the core purpose and the query pattern, but with no output schema it does not clarify the exact return structure, default limit behavior, or edge cases. It is adequate for a simple tool but leaves some contextual gaps.

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 coverage is low at 33%; only ascending has a description. The description adds that the column must be numeric but does not explain limit's default behavior or how it relates to the returned number of rows.

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 title and description clearly state the operation: ranking rows of a dataset by a numeric column and returning the highest or lowest values. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like dataset_search, dataset_stats, and dataset_row.

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 provides clear usage context with the 'which is the most/least X' pattern, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives such as dataset_search or dataset_stats.

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