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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds substantial context: pure arithmetic with no I/O or external calls, results rounded to 2 decimals, parameters belonging to other methods accepted and ignored, and error behavior for unknown methods or missing method-required parameters. This is behavior an agent cannot derive from 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?

Front-loaded with purpose and routing, then parameter requirements, then behavioral notes. Dense but nearly every clause carries information; the per-method parameter enumeration is lengthy, though justified by 17 parameters and four methods.

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 a 100%-covered schema, an output schema (so return values need no explanation), and full annotations, the description fills the remaining gaps: method-to-parameter mapping, unit conventions (decimals), rounding, ignored parameters, and error semantics. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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, but the description goes further by mapping which parameters each method requires (patent vs trademark vs copyright vs trade_secret) and flagging optional ones like comparable_license_rates and brand_method. That cross-parameter, method-conditional grouping is not expressed in the flat schema and materially aids correct invocation.

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 verb+resource (valuation of intellectual property) and enumerates the four IP sub-types it covers (patent, trademark, copyright, trade secret) with the valuation approach for each. It explicitly names the siblings it is not (valuation_technology, valuation_customer, valuation_human_capital), so an agent can route without opening other schemas.

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 an explicit when-to-use ('Use to value a specific IP right') and when-to-use-something-else ('For technology, software, data, and platform assets use valuation_technology; for customer and workforce assets use valuation_customer and valuation_human_capital'). It also states that only method is required and that other parameters are method-dependent and should be supplied/omitted accordingly.

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