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

Even though annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive, the description adds substantial behavior: TTM uses four discrete fiscal quarters, EV uses same-date components, inputs must reconcile, missing inputs are never estimated, and the company is excluded from its peer cohort. It also discloses that the response names each figure's date and cohort basis.

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?

The description is dense but every sentence earns its place: core metrics first, then methodology, scope constraints, output behavior, and a pointer to the historical alternative. It is front-loaded and contains 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 tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It covers what multiples are returned, peer-cohort construction, valuation methodology, data constraints, output transparency, and the relevant sibling tool.

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 ticker parameter is already documented in the schema. The description does not add significant parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb plus resource: 'Get current EV/Revenue, EV/EBIT and P/E with peer median, quartiles and sample size'. It clearly identifies what is retrieved and contrasts with GetValuationMultiplesHistory, so an agent can distinguish this tool from its nearest sibling.

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 states the temporal scope ('current') and explicitly directs the agent to 'Use GetValuationMultiplesHistory for point-in-time history.' This gives a clear when-to-use versus when-not-to-use rule with the alternative named directly.

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