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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered; the description nonetheless adds real behavioral context: pure arithmetic with no I/O or external calls, results rounded to 2 decimals, extraneous method parameters accepted and ignored, and an error (not a value) for unknown methods or missing required params. It does not restate annotations. A 4 rather than 5 only because it never describes default values beyond noting 'documented defaults apply where defined.'

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?

Lengthy, but front-loaded with the asset scope and method routing before the parameter detail, and every sentence carries distinct information (routing, per-method params, error behavior, output rounding). The dense per-method parameter list is the only part that reads as a wall of text.

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 a 14-parameter, method-dispatching calculator with an output schema, the description fully covers method selection, required-vs-ignored parameters, constraints, error semantics, and result formatting; nothing an agent needs to invoke 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. The description goes beyond the flat schema by grouping parameters per method and stating which set to supply, plus clarifying units/constraints (retention_rate and enforcement_probability in [0,1], projection_period = number of discounted periods), which the flat schema alone does not organize.

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?

Opens with a specific resource class (customer-related intangibles) and enumerates the three assets it values: customer relationships, distribution networks, and non-compete agreements. It explicitly routes similar-sounding needs to siblings (valuation_human_capital, valuation_technology), so the agent can distinguish it without opening 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 explicit when-to-use conditions per method and names the alternative tools for adjacent asset classes (workforce/key-person vs technology). The 'Only method is required; other parameters are method-dependent' rule tells the agent exactly how to compose a call.

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