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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: no external calls, no authentication required, deterministic computation, and that unsupported fields return an error envelope rather than raising an exception.

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 operational constraints (read-only, no auth, error envelope) are front-loaded, but the opening clause repeats 'valuation' twice and the routing sentence is longer than necessary. Some redundancy dilutes an otherwise compact definition.

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 still notes the shared result envelope. Together with the behavioral and routing notes, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly, though the awkward capability framing leaves the exact computation slightly ambiguous.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds only the note that unsupported fields yield an error envelope, but gives no field-level detail on what the forwarded schema accepts.

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 names the capability ('intangible valuation', 'market approach') and distinguishes itself from siblings by listing the native tools it should not replace. However, the framing 'a intangible valuation valuation capability' is repetitive and near-tautological, and no concrete verb describes what computation is actually performed.

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 guidance: use only for the 'valuation_market_approach' case the native tools do not handle, and prefer valuation_dcf, valuation_nav, valuation_cca, etc. whenever applicable. The instruction is somewhat circular (use this tool for the case this tool handles), but alternatives are named concretely.

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