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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates non-destructive behavior. The description adds no further behavioral details about return format or potential side effects rule out any contradiction. It does not mention pagination, timeouts, or how the result is structured beyond 'compact JSON schema' in the low_tokens parameter, which is stated in the schema.

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 sentences: first explains what it returns with an example pack, second clarifies exclusions. No redundant wording. Front-loaded with the core purpose ('Certified SEC valuation pack') and keeps it tight.

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?

Given the tool returns a pack and has an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and boundaries. It could mention that it provides historical and fundamental data, but the schema already details fields, and the surprise of exclusions (market EV, Buffett Indicator) is communicated. A minor gap is lack of a typical use case, but not critical.

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 for parameters is 100% (each parameter has a description). The tool description adds no extra semantics beyond what the schema already provides. It mentions 'including dcf_valuation_inputs historical FCF' which reinforces the pack parameter but does not delve into syntax or defaults beyond schema.

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?

Clearly states it returns a 'Certified SEC/EDGAR valuation inputs pack' and enumerates the 12 packs (e.g., dcf_valuation_inputs). It also explicitly delimits its scope by saying 'Not market EV, P/E, trading DCF, or macro gauges', which sharpens the tool's purpose. Lacks a direct statement of what the agent should use the returned data for, but the title and examples suffice.

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?

Provides negative guidance (what it is not) but does not name alternative siblings or give explicit scenarios for when to use this tool over others. The description implies it is for certified SEC-based valuation inputs, but does not reference sibling tools or provide decision rules.

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