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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/destructive/openWorld, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: deterministic computation, no external calls, no authentication required, and the failure mode that unsupported fields return an error envelope rather than raising. That error-handling detail is genuinely useful and not in the annotations.

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?

Reasonably front-loaded, but there is redundancy — 'startup valuation valuation capability' and repeated self-reference to 'valuation_comparables' — that eats space without adding meaning. The routing and behavior content earns its place; the framing sentences do not.

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 (it just points to the shared result envelope). With annotations and schema covering safety and parameters, the description supplies auth posture and failure behavior, leaving little an agent needs that is missing.

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 is 100% and there is a single optional 'arguments' wrapper, so the baseline is 3. The description confirms arguments follow the underlying tool's schema and notes the error behavior for unsupported fields, which adds marginal value but no field-level detail.

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?

It names the resource ('valuation_comparables') and scopes it to the startup valuation case, but the description is largely circular — 'a startup valuation valuation capability' — and never explains what comparables analysis actually computes. It does route the agent away from named siblings, which helps distinguish it, but the core purpose stays vague.

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?

Explicit when-to-use logic: '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, ...) whenever it applies.' It names alternatives and a fallback condition, though what the 'startup valuation comparables case' concretely is remains undefined.

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