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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the two things an agent most needs: the output contents and the $4.49 USDC x402 charge. It still omits payment mechanics (what happens pre-payment), whether peers are required for the peer-median default, and error behavior.

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?

One dense, front-loaded sentence with no filler — the deliverable comes first, then scope, then cost. The parenthetical is jargon-heavy but each item describes a real output artifact.

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?

A five-parameter tool with a nested object, no annotations, and no output schema, documented in a single sentence. An agent cannot confidently supply 'price' or know what keys 'assumptions' accepts, which is a material gap for a paid call.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does not: it hints at ticker, peers, and exit_multiple via 'US ticker' and 'peer-median EV/EBITDA', but 'price' and the nested 'assumptions' object (arbitrary numeric overrides) are unexplained, as is the maxItems:8 peer cap.

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?

Specific verb+resource: returns an LBO snapshot with sources & uses, three structures, IRR/MOIC, IRR grid, and memo for a US ticker. It is clearly distinguishable from get_comps and get_financials by the LBO/IRR framing, though it never names a sibling to reinforce that boundary.

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?

'for a US ticker' and 'exit at peer-median EV/EBITDA' imply the scope and default assumption, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no pointer to suggest_peers for building the peers list.

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