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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states rows are returned in the given order, which is a useful behavioral note, but it does not explicitly confirm it is a read-only operation, describe the output format, or address edge cases like no matches or value limits. The behavior is only minimally transparent.

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 operation and the order guarantee. It is appropriately brief without unnecessary fluff, though it could be slightly more explicit about the output without adding bulk.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete for safe invocation. It does not specify the return structure (e.g., list of rows, side-by-side view), potential errors, or the constraint of up to 10 values (though schema enforces this). The 'side by side' aspect from the title is not elaborated, leaving the agent uncertain about the exact result shape.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains the roles of 'column' and 'values' indirectly ('whose column is any of the given values') and adds the behavioral detail that order is preserved. However, it does not explicitly define 'column' as a dataset column name or clarify the exact matching semantics (exact match vs. substring), leaving some ambiguity.

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 specific action: retrieving rows from the Yearendo dataset filtered by a column matching given values, with order preserved. It distinguishes itself from siblings via the 'X vs Y questions' purpose, which is a clear differentiator from tools like dataset_search or dataset_row.

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 usage hint ('for X vs Y questions') but does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or reference sibling alternatives. The intended use case is implied but not contrasted with other dataset tools, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is preferred.

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