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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that: deterministic computation, no external calls, no authentication, and unsupported fields returning an error envelope instead of raising.

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 reasonably front-loaded and covers usage, behavior, and return handling in a few sentences. However, the first sentence is largely tautological and repeats the tool name unnecessarily.

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?

It covers usage routing, read-only behavior, and error handling, and an output schema exists for return values. But because the underlying tool schema is not provided, the agent still cannot know what fields to pass in the 'arguments' object, leaving a significant gap for a wrapper 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% for the single 'arguments' parameter, so the schema already documents its purpose. The description only says to see the underlying tool's schema for supported fields, adding no concrete parameter semantics beyond what is structured.

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 restates the tool name and calls it 'a intangible valuation valuation capability,' which is tautological and never states what the tool actually computes (e.g., purchase price allocation for goodwill/intangibles). It does route the agent away from native tools, but the core purpose remains 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?

It explicitly says to use this only for the intangible valuation case the native tools do not handle, and lists specific native alternatives to prefer. The condition is somewhat circular, but the when-to-use versus alternatives guidance is clear enough for routing.

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