ratios_valuation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description's 'Pre-computed' reinforces read-only nature but adds no new behavioral insights beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction.

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 front-loaded with the most critical information (purpose, requirement, alternatives) in the first 3 sentences. The trailing list of indicators is verbose but may aid discovery. It could be slightly more concise, but the structure is effective.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, key parameters, and use case (replacing raw statements). With an output schema present, the absence of return value details is acceptable. However, it does not mention potential errors (e.g., invalid ticker, missing data) or prerequisites like data availability.

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%, meaning all parameters have descriptions in the input schema. The description repeats some parameter guidance (e.g., 'tickers' format, 'quarterly' usage) but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. The list of indicators duplicates the enum. Baseline 3 for high coverage.

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 it provides 'Pre-computed valuation ratios' and lists examples like P/E, EPS, EV/EBITDA. It explicitly says 'Requires tickers' and distinguishes from siblings by saying 'Use instead of raw financial statements.' The verb+resource+scope is specific and distinguishes from other ratios_* tools.

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 clear when-to-use guidance: 'Use instead of raw financial statements.' It specifies required 'tickers', supported parameters like 'quarterly' and 'start_date/end_date', and even lists all available indicators. However, it does not explicitly say when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives among sibling tools (e.g., ratios_efficiency vs ratios_valuation).

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