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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond that: deterministic computation, no external calls, no authentication, and that unsupported fields return an error envelope rather than raising. That last point is especially valuable for an agent constructing arguments, and there is no contradiction with 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?

It is front-loaded with the name and a scope statement, and the fallback routing appears early. But there is notable redundancy ('valuation valuation'), and the long sibling enumeration consumes space without resolving the core ambiguity of when to use this versus the many startup-industry siblings.

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?

For a single-argument wrapper with a full-ish schema and an output schema present, the description covers the essential operational facts (read-only, deterministic, no auth, error envelope, argument forwarding). What it omits is the substantive differentiator: what specific valuation case this covers and how to choose it over the overlapping startup/advanced/industry siblings, which is the main thing an agent needs.

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 parameter, so the schema already documents 'arguments' fully. The description adds only the pointer that supported fields come from the forwarded tool's schema and that unsupported fields error out, which is helpful but not richer than the structured data. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 says it is a 'startup valuation valuation capability' and covers 'corporate, startup, and intangible valuation', which is vague and partly tautological relative to the name. It never specifies what this endpoint actually computes (e.g., 409A, preferred allocation, or conversion) beyond a generic label, and the key routing signal is only 'the case that native tools do not handle', which does not distinguish it from the many startup/industry siblings such as valuation_saas, valuation_fintech, or valuation_advanced.

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 does give some routing guidance: 'Use it only for the startup valuation case that the native tools do not handle' and lists several alternatives to prefer. However, with 34 siblings including multiple overlap candidates (valuation_advanced, valuation_saas, valuation_fintech, valuation_technology), it offers no concrete condition distinguishing this fallback from those, leaving the choice largely to inference.

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