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

Annotations cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), but the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: pure arithmetic with no I/O, rounding to 2 decimals, decimal-format rates, that non-matching parameters are silently ignored, that defaults apply, and that an unknown method or missing required parameter returns an error rather than a value.

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-loads the asset scope before the routing rules and parameter map, which is the right order. The parameter inventory is dense and partly restates the method lists, so it is slightly longer than strictly necessary, but nearly every clause carries operative information.

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?

For an 18-parameter, method-dispatched calculator with an output schema already present, the description supplies everything an agent needs: scope, sibling routing, per-method parameter requirements, format conventions, error behavior, and the fact that omitted defaults apply. Return values are rightly left to the output schema.

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 adds real value by mapping each method to its required parameter set (e.g. data_asset needs acquisition_cost + quality_score + revenue_contribution + useful_life + discount_rate) and by clarifying the cash_flow_projections horizon for developed_technology. It stops short of explaining every parameter's individual meaning, which the schema already handles.

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 the specific resource (technology intangibles) and enumerates the four covered asset types plus the method-driven formula selection. It explicitly names valuation_ip and valuation_customer as the tools for adjacent asset classes, so the agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening any 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 (developed technology, software, data, platform) and when-not (patents/trademarks/copyrights/trade secrets → valuation_ip; customer relationships → valuation_customer). The routing conditions are stated, not implied.

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