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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavioral traits, but it only describes the content scope of the table. It does not state that the operation is read-only, describe the response format, or disclose any filtering behavior beyond what the parameter schema already implies.

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 compact sentence with no filler and clearly scopes the table to US field service management platforms. The dash construction is slightly informal but efficient and easy to parse.

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-optional-parameter table lookup, the description conveys the core content adequately, but it leaves the actual return format and default behavior implicit. With no output schema and no annotations, the definition is minimally sufficient rather than fully self-contained.

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?

The input schema already documents the single optional parameter clearly with 'one option's name, else all', so the description adds no new parameter meaning. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the resource as the full comparison table showing each option's value on every criterion, which helps distinguish it from sibling tools focused on criteria or options. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'returns' or 'lists,' relying on the tool name and title to convey the action.

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' and 'every criterion' imply this tool is for retrieving the complete cross-comparison rather than the narrower compare_criteria or compare_options tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so the guidance is implied rather than direct.

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