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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond that by stating it is deterministic with 'no external calls and no authentication required' and by disclosing error behavior: 'unsupported fields return an error envelope rather than raising.' That error-handling contract is not present in 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?

The name/identifier is front-loaded, but the text is padded with redundancy ('intangible valuation valuation capability') and repeats the tool name twice. The useful routing and error-handling sentences are buried behind boilerplate, so every sentence does not fully earn its 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 values need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. Given the wrapper/proxy complexity, the description supplies the needed routing, read-only determinism, and error-envelope behavior, making it largely complete for calling the tool correctly; only the actual domain semantics of the royalty method remain unstated.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'arguments' property is already documented as a passthrough to the target tool's schema. The description largely restates this ('Pass an arguments object matching that tool's schema'), adding only the unsupported-field error behavior. With the schema doing the heavy lifting, 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 names the resource ('royalty analysis' within intangible valuation) and states it is exposed so 'one endpoint covers corporate, startup, and intangible valuation,' but the core phrasing 'a intangible valuation valuation capability' is repetitive and tautological, and it never explains what a royalty analysis actually computes. It does distinguish itself from siblings by naming them, which lifts it above a pure restatement.

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: 'Use it only for the intangible 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.' That is a clear when-to-use and alternatives statement. It stops short of a 5 because the fallback condition is somewhat circular ('the case the native tools do not handle') rather than describing what a royalty analysis specifically covers.

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