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

No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose any side effects, return format, or error behavior. It only states what rows are returned without specifying the output structure or any potential mutations (though it is likely a read-only operation). The lack of explicit behavioral details reduces 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, concise sentence that communicates the core functionality without superfluous detail. It is well-structured and directly addresses the tool's purpose, making it 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?

Given the simplicity of the tool, the description provides enough context for a user to understand what it does. It does not mention output format, pagination, or limitations (e.g., max values), but these are implied by the schema. The description is adequate for its complexity, though slightly more detail on the result structure would improve completeness.

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 explains that 'column' is the field to match and 'values' are the acceptable values (any of). It also mentions the order is preserved. This adds meaning beyond the schema, which only defines types and constraints. The description covers both parameters effectively, though it could be slightly more explicit about the column's role.

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 retrieves rows from the Weekrota dataset based on a column matching any of the given values, in the order provided. The title 'Compare rows side by side' gives a general sense, but the description clarifies the specific function. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like dataset_row (single row) and dataset_search (likely broader search).

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 includes the phrase 'for "X vs Y" questions,' which provides clear guidance on when to use this tool—specifically when comparing rows based on a column's values. While it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, the usage hint is sufficient to guide appropriate selection.

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