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

The description discloses one behavioral trait: rows are returned in the order of the given values. However, there are no annotations (e.g., readOnly, destructive) and no mention of edge cases such as no matches, missing column, or case sensitivity. The description carries the burden but provides only partial transparency.

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 sentence, concise and without fluff. It front-loads the core action ('rows of the Sopvo dataset') and then specifies the matching logic and ordering. While the phrasing 'The rows...' is a bit noun-heavy, it is still efficient and easy 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?

The description explains the core functionality and ordering but omits details that would be helpful given there is no output schema. It does not specify the exact format of the returned rows, whether all columns are included, or how errors (e.g., invalid column, no matches) are handled. For a tool this simple, the description is adequate but not fully complete.

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 description clarifies the meaning of both parameters: 'column' is the column to match against, and 'values' are the allowed values (with an OR semantics, as indicated by 'any of the given values'). It also explains that the output ordering follows the order of 'values'. This goes beyond the schema's basic type and length 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 clearly states that the tool returns rows from the Sopvo dataset where a specified column matches any of the given values, and preserves the order of those values. It also hints at the intended use case ('X vs Y' questions). However, it does not explicitly start with a verb like 'retrieve' or 'get', making it slightly less direct.

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 vague usage hint ('for X vs Y questions') but does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings like dataset_search or dataset_row. It does not state when to prefer this tool over others, nor does it describe any alternatives or exclusion criteria.

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