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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, the description discloses that the tool is pure arithmetic with no I/O or external calls, rounds results to two decimals, accepts and ignores parameters from other methods, and returns an error for unknown methods or missing required parameters. This is rich behavioral context that goes well beyond 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?

The description is dense but front-loaded: purpose first, then usage and sibling routing, then method-specific parameters, then behavioral notes. Every sentence serves a clear need, and the long parameter mapping is necessary given the 18-parameter schema.

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?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values. It fully covers purpose, usage, method-parameter dependencies, error conditions, and computational behavior, leaving no significant gap for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds critical semantic value by mapping each method to its required parameters (e.g., developed_technology needs rd_costs, life_cycle_stage, competitive_advantage, discount_rate, cash_flow_projections) and clarifying that only method is required and other parameters are method-dependent. This conditional grouping is not present in the 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?

The description states a specific domain — technology asset valuation — and enumerates the four method-specific assets it handles (developed technology, software, data, platform). It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by directing patents/trademarks/copyrights/trade secrets to valuation_ip and customer relationships to valuation_customer.

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 when-to-use guidance, names the alternative sibling tools for other asset classes, and provides per-method parameter requirements so the agent knows exactly which inputs to supply for each selected method.

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