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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses row filtering and ordering behavior, which is useful beyond the schema, but omits read-only safety, matching semantics, limits, and return format.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and efficient, covering purpose, output ordering, and usage context without waste. It is appropriately sized, though slightly terse.

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 two-parameter filter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is minimally adequate: it explains what rows are returned and in what order. However, it lacks details on matching semantics, value limits, and return format that would make it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It names both required parameters implicitly ('column', 'values') and adds the ordering constraint, but does not explain value formats, matching rules, or the 2–10 item bounds.

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 resource (rows of the Wedding Cost Checker dataset) and the filtering/ordering behavior (rows whose column is any of the given values, in the order given). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like dataset_search or dataset_row, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use the tool: 'for X vs Y questions.' However, it does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, which prevents a higher score.

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