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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, but it does not state what the tool returns, whether it is a read-only operation, how missing or invalid options are handled, or what 'accepted for comparison' means in practice. It describes the table's content, not the tool's behavior.

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 sentence and reasonably short, but it is syntactically awkward and the clause 'by what they are accepted for comparison' is vague and potentially confusing. It earns points for brevity but loses them for clarity.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify the return shape and default behavior when option is omitted. It does neither. An agent would still be uncertain what invoking this tool actually produces.

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% because the only parameter, option, has a description ('one option's name, else all'). The tool description adds no extra meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 the tool's subject matter — option values across criteria for Business valuation report types — but it is phrased as a noun phrase ('the full table') rather than an action an agent can invoke. It does not clearly distinguish itself from the sibling tools compare_criteria and compare_options, both of which likely cover similar ground.

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 'the full table' hints that this is the comprehensive view, but it never explicitly says 'use this for all options and criteria at once' or names any alternative.

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