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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: it discloses what the tool returns (an SDE multiple range and a revenue multiple range) and that it can be used to explain the origin of a valuation. No permission, rate-limit or failure-mode details, but with annotations present the bar is lower.

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 the return content, then the usage condition, then the disambiguation to the sibling. The example phrasings are compact and directly serve matching user utterances, so each sentence earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly compensates by stating what is returned. For a single-optional-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, an agent has everything needed to select and call it correctly.

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 optional 'industry' parameter already documents Hebrew names, English aliases, and the omit-to-get-all behavior. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns the typical valuation multiples ... by industry') and names exactly what is returned (SDE multiple range, revenue multiple range). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling estimate_business_value, which is explicitly cited as the tool for one specific business.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use condition ('general questions ... with no specific business figures'), lists concrete trigger phrasings in English and Hebrew, and names the alternative tool plus the condition that selects it ('For the value of one specific business, estimate_business_value'). Nothing is left to inference.

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