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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that rows are returned in the order of the given values, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what happens if no rows match, or any pagination/response limits. This is a significant gap for a tool without annotation safety hints.

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?

A single sentence that efficiently front-loads the core function (returns rows filtered by column values) and adds the ordering detail and usage context. Every clause adds value, with no unnecessary words.

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?

While the tool is simple, the description does not specify the output format (e.g., whether it returns full rows or a side-by-side comparison view), error behavior for empty results, or whether all columns are included. With no output schema, these omissions leave gaps for an agent.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It clarifies that 'values' are matched against 'column' and that their order dictates the returned row order. This directly explains the relationship between the two parameters and the ordering behavior, which the bare schema does not convey.

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's function: it returns rows of the Corp Tax Calculator dataset where a column matches any of the given values, in the order provided. This is specific and distinct from siblings like dataset_row (single row) or dataset_search (general search), though it doesn't name them.

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 a usage context: 'for "X vs Y" questions' – implying this tool is for comparing specific values side by side. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, leaving some inference required from the agent.

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