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

With readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false already declaring the safety profile, the description adds useful context: the result is arithmetic on published figures and caller assumptions, and it neither values a company nor recommends a transaction. It also discloses what the return payload includes, including source document ids and the deal address.

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 opening sentence is front-loaded and specific, but the description then becomes very dense, packing a long output list, assumption-key enumeration and unit conventions into run-on sentences. The information is useful, but it could be structured more cleanly.

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 appropriately summarizes the returned data: returns, sources and uses, debt schedule, covenants, checks, optional solvers, inputs with source document ids, and a site address. It also includes an important non-advice disclaimer, leaving only minor gaps such as error behavior or pagination.

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?

The schema already documents all three parameters at 100% coverage, but the description adds meaningful semantics by naming assumption keys such as entry, exit_mult, years, debt, growth, margin, tax and base. It also clarifies that shares and rates are fractions and multiples are times EBITDA, which is not in the 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: it runs the buyout model on a company's published figures using starting values or caller assumptions. It is clearly distinct from the retrieval-oriented sibling tools, though it does not explicitly name or contrast those siblings.

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 usage context is implied by the output list and the optional assumptions/solvers flags, but the description never explicitly says when to choose this tool over the simpler sibling tools. It also gives no exclusions or prerequisites.

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