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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description only needed to add operational context — and it does: peers with negative or missing figures are dropped from that multiple and reported with a reason, and the discount is subtracted from implied values before presentation. 'Free' also signals there is no credit cost. It stops short of describing any limits on peer count or how missing target figures are handled.

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?

Two dense sentences plus 'Free', with no filler. It is slightly output-first rather than action-first, and 'Free' is a fragment, but every clause carries information about how results are computed and reported.

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?

With six parameters, nested peer objects and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return shape, and it does so well (quartiles, median, mean, implied enterprise and equity values, exclusion list). Remaining gaps — behavior when target is omitted, whether multiples defaults, and the equity bridge mechanics — are minor for this tool.

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 50%, with descriptions already on market_cap, currency, discount and target net_debt. The description adds the conceptual meaning of the discount (taken off implied values, e.g. a private-company discount) and that multiples selection drives which outputs appear, but it says nothing about the target object's required inputs or how peers' enterprise_value vs market_cap+net_debt are reconciled.

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 names the resource precisely (peer trading multiples: EV/revenue, EV/EBITDA, EV/EBIT, P/E) and states the output is an implied valuation for the target. It is clearly a trading-comps valuation distinct from valuation_dcf or valuation_lbo, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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?

Usage is implied by the content: provide peers and optionally a target, and get implied values. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over valuation_benchmark, valuation_dcf, or valuation_football_field, and no stated prerequisites beyond the required peers array.

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