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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description's value comes from methodology disclosure: the EV-to-equity derivation, separate reporting of NAV/comparables/liquidation floor, conditional benchmark, amount_unit scaling, and the total_assets override behavior. This goes well beyond what annotations or schema alone convey.

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?

Every sentence contributes: methodology, output definition, conditional benchmark, unit semantics, and an asset-input edge case. The structure front-loads what the tool does before diving into caveats, and there is no filler or tautology.

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 complex 25-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the key semantic ambiguities an agent would face: what the headline value means, when the benchmark appears, how monetary units work, and how total_assets changes the valuation logic. The existing output schema covers return-value shape, so the description does not need to restate it.

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?

With only 12% schema description coverage, the description compensates for the most error-prone parameters: amount_unit ('5 for 5 million'), total_assets ('used as provided; the six asset lines are then used only for the liquidation floor'), and the role of EBITDA/revenue/FCFF in the headline corridor. It does not explain every optional field, but the remaining names are largely self-explanatory.

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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Estimate an SME or mid-market company value' using a named six-method methodology. It distinguishes this tool from all siblings, which are advisory/booking/referral tools, and clarifies that the headline output is Equity Value rather than Enterprise Value.

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 description makes the tool's context clear enough: this is the valuation tool, while all siblings target advisory, readiness, booking, referral, or capabilities. It does not explicitly give when-not-to-use guidance, but no close alternative exists in the sibling list, and it does add a condition for the benchmark output ('when real sector data is available').

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