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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds that related records are embedded via include and names the HTTP endpoint, but says nothing about not-found behavior, response shape, or what 'cancelled' does beyond the schema.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the key fact (one valuation by UUID) and the include behavior, with no filler.

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 no output schema, the description does not explain the returned valuation object or the shape of embedded 'included' records. Annotations and the fully documented schema carry most of the burden, making it adequate but not complete for a read tool without an 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 schema already documents valuation_id, include, and cancelled. The description adds only a passing reference to include embedding related records; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('One valuation by UUID') and gives the underlying endpoint GET /valuations/{id}. This distinguishes it from the sibling list tool street_list_valuations, though it doesn't name that sibling explicitly.

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?

Implies it is the single-record lookup for valuations and that related records are requested via include, but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternatives such as street_list_valuations.

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