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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), the description adds that computation is deterministic, requires no external calls or authentication, that unsupported fields return an error envelope rather than raising, and that it returns the shared result envelope. These are genuinely useful behavioral facts not derivable from the annotations, though error-envelope shape details remain thin.

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 routing guidance is front-loaded, which is good, but the paragraph is long and run-on, and phrases like 'a startup valuation valuation capability' and repeated self-naming ('the startup valuation valuation_biotech case') waste space. Some trimming would sharpen it without losing content.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers routing, safety, and error behavior. However, for a domain-specialized valuation tool the description is silent on what inputs the biotech case expects or what it models, leaving a real completeness gap despite the passthrough schema.

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 there is only one passthrough 'arguments' parameter, so the schema already carries the baseline. The description adds that unsupported fields produce an error envelope, but it defers field enumeration to 'that tool's schema,' which is not exposed here, so it does not meaningfully help an agent know what to pass.

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 identifies the resource as a 'startup valuation valuation capability' and frames it as a domain-specific case, but the phrase 'valuation valuation' is redundant and it never says what biotech-specific valuation actually computes (e.g., pipeline/rNPV logic) beyond restating its own name. An agent learns it is a startup-valuation variant but not what distinguishes it substantively from valuation_saas, valuation_technology, or the native tools.

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?

It gives explicit routing: 'Use it only for the startup valuation ... case that the native tools do not handle; prefer the native tool (valuation_dcf, valuation_nav, valuation_cca, calculate_wacc, calculate_ecl, or black_scholes_price) whenever it applies.' That names alternatives and a preference order. It stops short of 5 because the criterion for when the biotech case 'applies' is never made concrete.

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