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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds that the content is a fixed published reference including a versioning policy, which hints at stability, but adds little beyond that. No return-structure or freshness detail beyond the content list.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource before the content enumeration. The inline list is long but each item tells the agent something about the returned material rather than restating the title.

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 and no parameters, the description must carry the burden of describing returns, and it does so by enumerating the formula, multiples, adjustments, weights, archetype rules, limitations and versioning. An agent knows both what it gets and why it would call it.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document and the baseline applies. Nothing in the description conflicts with the empty object 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?

Specific verb ('Returns') plus a specific resource ('EvalyMe's published valuation methodology'), then an enumeration of exactly what that resource contains. It is trivially distinguishable from analyze_listing and value_business, which perform valuations rather than describe the method behind them.

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 explaining or citing how an EvalyMe valuation was produced' gives a clear use context and implies the explanatory/citation scenario rather than the computation scenario. It does not explicitly name the siblings as the alternative for computing a valuation, so the routing is inferable rather than stated.

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