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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond them: pure arithmetic with no I/O or external calls, results rounded to 2 decimals, parameters for other methods accepted and ignored, and error-on-unknown-method/missing-required-parameter semantics. It does not state default values or output shape explicitly, but the output schema covers returns.

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?

Dense but well front-loaded: purpose, then alternatives, then per-method parameters, then arithmetic/convention notes. Every sentence carries information. It is longer than strictly necessary for a 10-parameter tool, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Given an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it computes, when to use it, which sibling to prefer, exactly which parameters each method requires, unit conventions, and error behavior. No material gap remains.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by grouping parameters per method, stating that only method is required while all others are method-dependent, clarifying range conventions ([0,1], decimals as 0.10 = 10%) and the productivity_factor parity semantics. This adds real routing value over the flat schema.

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?

States a specific resource and computation ('assembled-workforce value by replacement cost and key-person value'), names the two methods, and explicitly routes customer-related and technology assets to valuation_customer and valuation_technology. An agent can distinguish it from all siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('for assembled workforce and key-person intangibles') and names two concrete alternatives with the condition that selects them (customer-related, technology). Method selection guidance is also provided via the enum-driven formulas.

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