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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by disclosing that teammate-shared valuations are included and by listing the returned attributes. It does not explain pagination or truncation behavior even though a limit parameter (default 50, max 100) implies result capping.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that puts the verb, resource and access scope first and the field enumeration last. The field list is long but it is doing real work in the absence of an output schema, so it earns its place.

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 usefully compensates by naming the returned fields, and it clarifies the shared-access scope. The remaining gap is result-set behavior: nothing tells the agent whether 50 results is a full answer or requires further paging.

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 only 50%: 'search' is documented in the schema but 'limit' has no description anywhere. The tool description mentions neither parameter, so it does not compensate for the documented gap or clarify whether 'limit' caps results, requires paging, or how search interacts with the returned set.

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 (Lists) and resource (business valuations/companies) plus the exact scope: the user's own account plus valuations teammates shared with them. It also enumerates the returned fields, which makes it unmistakably the discovery/listing tool rather than the single-entity get_company_valuation or get_company_financials siblings.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the enumeration of summary fields signals this is the entry point before drilling into siblings like get_company_financials or get_company_valuation. However, there is no explicit 'use this when...' or 'use X instead when...' routing, and no mention of what to do if the list is truncated.

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