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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the output semantics: a complete cross of options by criteria. It does not mention filters, formatting, or side effects, but the tool's core behavior as a full-table display is conveyed.

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 with the key scope placed first: 'each option's value on every criterion.' The trailing 'full table' is slightly redundant with the title, but there is no unnecessary elaboration.

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 table lookup with no output schema, the description conveys the essential return concept. It does not explicitly state that omitting 'option' returns all options, but that is fully covered by the schema, and the sibling tool names help clarify the table's role.

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 schema already fully describes the only parameter ('one option's name, else all'), and the description adds no meaningful operational detail beyond that. With 100% schema description 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 tool's output as the full comparison table—every option's value on every criterion. The phrase 'full table' distinguishes it from sibling tools like compare_criteria and compare_options, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'get' or 'return'.

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 'full table' phrasing implies this tool is for seeing the entire comparison rather than a single criterion or option. However, it never explicitly states when to use this tool instead of compare_criteria or compare_options, and it gives no exclusions or alternative conditions.

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