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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral details but does not. It fails to mention sorting behavior, output format, handling of ties or missing values, or the fact that only numeric columns are valid. This leaves significant ambiguity for an agent.

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 concise and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in a single sentence. It avoids redundancy but could be slightly more structured to include parameter or usage hints.

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 has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must be self-sufficient. It leaves out critical details such as return structure, error conditions, and how parameters interact. An agent would likely need to inspect the schema or make assumptions to call it correctly.

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 only 33%, yet the description adds little. It hints that the column must be numeric but does not explain 'limit' or 'ascending' beyond what the schema already states. Given the low coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 clear, specific purpose: ranking rows of the Sacristo dataset by a numeric column to find the highest or lowest. The phrase 'which is the most/least X' makes the intent unmistakable and distinguishes it from siblings like dataset_search or dataset_stats.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for ranking queries but does not mention any exclusions, alternatives, or conditions that would help an agent decide between this and sibling tools like dataset_stats or dataset_search.

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