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

Adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: deterministic computation, no external calls, no authentication required, and the non-raising error envelope for unsupported fields. Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, so this is solid supplementary context rather than the full burden.

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?

Front-loaded with name and capability, but the first sentence is redundant and awkward ('a startup valuation valuation capability ... one endpoint covers corporate, startup, and intangible valuation'), and the routing guidance is buried after it. Some sentences do not fully earn their place.

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-value detail is unnecessary, and the description still notes it returns the shared result envelope. Combined with rich annotations and 100% schema coverage, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly, though the actual computation semantics remain underspecified.

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 the single 'arguments' parameter is already documented as forwarded to the underlying tool's schema. The description repeats that ('Pass an arguments object matching that tool's schema') without adding syntax, field lists, or examples, so baseline 3 applies.

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 identifies the resource (startup valuation) and positions the tool as the catch-all endpoint for corporate/startup/intangible valuation, but the phrasing is circular ('a startup valuation valuation capability') and never states what it actually computes or returns. An agent knows roughly what domain it belongs to, but not the specific operation beyond 'startup valuation'.

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 routing guidance: '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, calculate_wacc, calculate_ecl, or black_scholes_price) whenever it applies.' Names both the when-to-use condition and the specific alternative siblings.

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