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

Goes well past the annotations, which only declare read-only/idempotent/closed-world. The description discloses the data window (disclosed deals 2018-2026), minimum cell sizes (n>=10 per bracket, n>=5 all-sizes), that sub-threshold figures are withheld and never estimated, and that group ids collapse to one all-sizes median per sub-vertical — all material to interpreting the numbers.

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?

Front-loaded with 'Read-only' and the core question, then payload, then thresholds, then alternatives. Every sentence earns its place, though the threshold parenthetical is dense enough to slow reading slightly.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of describing return values — which it does precisely (medians, 25th-75th percentile band, deal count n, per bracket and all-sizes). Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly and interpret the response is missing.

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%, so the schema already carries the parameter docs and baseline would be 3. The description adds genuine meaning beyond it — that an industry group id changes the return shape to one all-sizes median per sub-vertical — though it does not separately address the size_bracket parameter's effect.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource (returns median EV/EBITDA and EV/Revenue multiples for ONE industry) and frames it as answering a concrete question. The 'ONE industry' scoping plus the explicit routing to compare_industries and get_multiples_trend makes it unmistakable against every sibling.

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?

Explicitly states when to use alternatives: compare_industries for several industries side by side, get_multiples_trend for year-by-year history. Adds a clear not-for boundary — 'Population medians only: it does not value a specific business' — which rules out a likely agent misuse.

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