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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It communicates that the result is a full table of values across all options and criteria, which is useful but does not state the output format, whether it is a read-only operation, or how the optional parameter affects the result.

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 one sentence and front-loads the key content: each option's value on every criterion. It is concise, though the phrasing around 'comparison — the full table' is slightly awkward.

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 read-style tool with one optional parameter, the description gives the core idea but leaves some context implicit: how it relates to compare_criteria and compare_options, and what the returned table looks like. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the option parameter documented as 'one option's name, else all'. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but the schema already covers it, 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 identifies a specific resource: the full comparison table of veterinary practice management systems, showing each option's value on every criterion. It is clear enough to distinguish from the sibling tools compare_criteria and compare_options, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns'.

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 phrase 'the full table' implies use when the agent needs the complete matrix rather than a per-criterion or per-option view, but it never explicitly names when to use this tool versus compare_criteria or compare_options. No exclusions or alternative conditions are provided.

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