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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only mentions 'highest (or lowest) rows' and 'numeric column', but omits critical behavioral details such as default limit, sorting direction, pagination, or return format. The tool's mutation/read-only nature is also unclear, and the schema's limit and ascending properties are not addressed in the description.

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 core purpose and includes a clarifying example. There is no unnecessary verbosity, and the structure is 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?

For a tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It omits important operational context such as default limit values, sorting semantics (e.g., what happens when ascending is not provided), and any assumptions about the column data type beyond 'numeric'. An agent would need to infer too much 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 low (33% only for 'ascending'). The description adds a single piece of semantic meaning by stating the column must be numeric, which is not explicit in the schema. However, it does not explain the 'limit' parameter or the 'ascending' behavior beyond what the schema already states, so it fails to compensate for the low 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 ranks rows by a numeric column, using a specific verb ('rank') and a concrete resource (the Tenantvo dataset). It also includes an example query ('which is the most/least X') that makes the intent unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools 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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies a usage context ('which is the most/least X') but does not mention any sibling tools or conditions for choosing this over dataset_search or dataset_row. There is no exclusion or alternative routing.

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