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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavior disclosure. It conveys that the result is a full table covering every option and criterion, which is useful. However, it does not describe the table layout, output format, or how the optional 'option' parameter affects behavior beyond what the schema already states.

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 compact sentence with no filler or redundant content. The minor weakness is that it is phrased as a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb-led instruction.

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 one-parameter query tool, the description conveys the core output and scope. However, it omits any guidance on how this tool relates to its siblings, and with no annotations it provides no behavioral or safety context beyond the basic content of the table.

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 100%, and the parameter description 'one option's name, else all' fully documents the meaning. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but none are needed given the schema's clarity.

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 identifies the resource clearly: a full comparison table of 409A valuation providers for US startups, covering each option's value on every criterion. However, it lacks an explicit verb and does not directly distinguish this tool from the sibling compare_criteria or compare_options tools.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use compare_table versus compare_criteria or compare_options. The phrase 'full table' implies broad use, but there is no explicit context, alternative, or condition for selecting this tool.

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