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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing what the payload contains (documents, typical steps, contact details) and by naming Codon Valuation Advisors as the firm providing the connector, which signals a promotional/commercial-information source the agent should treat accordingly.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with what is listed, then the usage trigger. No redundant restatement of the title and no filler.

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 single-parameter, read-only informational tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description is essentially complete: it states the content, the trigger, and the source. A minor gap is that it does not say whether the returned guidance is static or jurisdiction-templated, but the valuation_type parameter makes that inferable.

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% and the single enum parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the 'both' case for companies with US and UK option holders. The description mentions both jurisdictions but adds no syntax or selection guidance beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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?

Specific verb ('Lists') plus specific resource ('the documents and typical steps for a formal US 409A valuation or UK HMRC valuation'), with vendor contact details named. The word 'formal' and the requirements framing clearly separate it from the sibling estimators estimate_409a_value and estimate_emi_share_value, which compute values rather than explain process.

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?

Explicit trigger given: 'Use when the user asks what a formal valuation requires or how to obtain one.' It does not explicitly name the estimator siblings as alternatives or say when NOT to use it, but the requirements-vs-estimate split is clear enough from the framing.

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