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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only describes the purpose and capability. It does not mention output format, data source, side effects, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only. This is a significant gap for a calculation tool.

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 relatively concise at two sentences, but it includes vague marketing phrases like 'more personalized and precise valuation' that add little value. It is not as tight as it could be, but it does front-load the core action.

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?

This tool involves a nested object with 19 parameters and has no output schema or annotations. The description provides almost no operational context, such as what data is needed, what the result looks like, or how it differs from simpler DCF tools, making it inadequate for effective use.

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%, meaning the schema's field descriptions are just labels like 'Beta' and 'Tax rate' without additional meaning. The description fails to compensate by explaining any of the input parameters or the nested 'input' object structure, leaving the agent without semantic understanding of the required data.

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 clearly states the verb 'Run' and the resource 'DCF analysis' using the FMP Custom DCF Advanced API, indicating a tailored analysis. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like calculateCustomDCF or getLeveredDCFValuation, so it lacks strong sibling distinction.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as calculateCustomDCF or standard DCF endpoints. It does not state scenarios, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent without decision criteria for tool selection.

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