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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is a retrieval of rows, implying a read-only action, but does not explicitly mention that it does not modify data. It also doesn't discuss edge cases like no matches, duplicate handling, or any limits beyond the input schema. The description covers the core behavior but lacks depth on potential side effects or guarantees.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and includes the key detail about ordering. Every word contributes value; there is no redundancy 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?

The tool is simple (2 parameters, no nested objects, no output schema). The description explains the inputs and purpose but does not specify the output format or any pagination/limit behavior. Given the simplicity, it is mostly complete for an agent to call correctly, but the lack of output details is a minor gap.

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 only types and constraints (column as string, values as array of strings with min 2, max 10). The description adds meaning by explaining that 'column' is the field to match against and 'values' are the specific values to filter for. It also clarifies that output order follows the order of 'values', which is not evident from the schema. With 0% schema coverage, the description effectively compensates.

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 action (return rows), the specific resource (Runwayze dataset), and the selection criterion (column matching any given values). It also mentions ordering, which distinguishes it from a generic search. The purpose is unambiguous and easily distinguishable from sibling tools like dataset_search or 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 a clear use case: 'for "X vs Y" questions'. This signals when to use the tool (comparing specific values in a column). It doesn't explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer it's for targeted comparisons rather than broad queries.

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