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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the valuation methodology (Treas. Reg. §20.2031-2(b) mean of high/low, §20.2031-8(b) for funds), the 15%–23.8% capital-gains range, the 25-holding cap, and the accuracy disclaimer with a pointer to a signed valuation.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the asset scope and the core estimate come first, followed by methodology, limits and disclaimer. Every clause carries information, though the run-on sentence structure could be split for readability.

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 no output schema, the description still explains what the reply contains (the §2032 alternate valuation date, Form 706 due date, portability election deadline) and what it does not (a signed valuation). Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents shares, symbol, asset_type, original_cost and date_of_death. The description only restates the asset-type scope and the 25-holding limit, adding little syntax or format detail beyond the structured fields.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('estimates the value on the date of death ... the IRC §1014 step-up in cost basis and the capital-gains tax the heirs avoid') with clear scope (U.S.-listed stocks, ETFs, mutual funds, crypto held at death). No sibling tool touches inheritance valuation, so the agent can route to it unambiguously.

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?

Specifies the qualifying assets and ownership contexts ('directly, in an estate or in a revocable living trust') and draws a boundary ('an estimate for planning, not a signed valuation a broker or the IRS will accept'). It doesn't name an alternative tool, but no sibling provides an overlapping capability, so there is little to exclude.

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