dcf_sensitivity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly indicates a pure calculation producing a per-share matrix, which implies read-only behavior. However, it does not explain how the rate arrays are iterated or how assumptions.discount_rate relates to discount_rates.

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 sentence with an active verb and the key deliverable front-loaded. There is no filler, repetition, or irrelevant detail.

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?

For a nested-object financial model with three required parameters and no annotations, one sentence is not enough. The output schema may cover return values, but the description omits usage context, the meaning of the scalar discount_rate within assumptions, and how this tool differs from the single-point DCF sibling.

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 33%, so the description must compensate, but it never mentions the assumptions object or its required fields. It maps 'WACC' and 'growth rates' to discount_rates and terminal_growth_rates, yet leaves the role of assumptions.discount_rate ambiguous relative to the discount_rates array.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Calculate a per-share DCF sensitivity matrix across WACC and growth rates.' The phrase 'sensitivity matrix' clearly differentiates it from the sibling calculate_dcf tool, which likely performs a single-point valuation.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus calculate_dcf, calculate_wacc, or project_financials. The word 'sensitivity' implies scenario analysis, but there are no explicit alternatives, exclusions, or conditions for selection.

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