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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description reinforces it but also adds genuinely new behavior — deterministic computation, no authentication required, and that unsupported fields return an error envelope rather than raising. That error-handling disclosure is useful context beyond the structured fields.

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?

Purpose and routing are front-loaded, which is good, but the text is repetitive and grammatically garbled ('a intangible valuation valuation capability') and spends a sentence restating its own name as the use case. The content is largely earned, but the redundancy costs it.

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 routing/behavioral context is solid. The real gap is that the effective input contract lives in the referenced tool's schema, which is not supplied to the agent — so the description is complete on routing but incomplete on how to actually invoke it correctly.

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?

There is a single 'arguments' parameter at 100% schema coverage, and the schema itself explains it forwards to the target tool. The description confirms the pass-through and the error behavior on unsupported fields, but it defers field-level meaning to 'that tool's schema', which the agent cannot see — so no real semantic detail is added.

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 gives a category ('a intangible valuation valuation capability') and names the resource, but the phrasing is circular and partly tautological — it defines the tool by restating its own name ('the intangible valuation \'valuation_human_capital\' case'). An agent learns it is a human-capital intangible valuation, but not what it actually computes or returns.

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?

Explicitly states the when-not ('Use it only for the intangible valuation case that the native tools do not handle') and enumerates the preferred alternatives (valuation_dcf, valuation_nav, valuation_cca, calculate_wacc, calculate_ecl, black_scholes_price) with a clear precedence rule ('prefer the native tool whenever it applies'). This is exactly the routing guidance an agent needs among 30+ siblings.

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