finance_growth_equity_valuation

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

Annotations are absent, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions routing through a domain-agent dispatcher with JWT and tenant scope, which is useful, but it does not specify whether the action is read-only, long-running, or what side effects occur. The core behavior of the valuation is not described.

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 short and clearly lists the two arguments. However, its brevity comes at the cost of informativeness. Every sentence is present, but the content is minimal.

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?

Given the complexity of a growth equity valuation action and the presence of an output schema (unseen), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how it fits into the finance domain, or its relationship to other valuation tools. The agent cannot determine when to invoke this tool effectively.

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%, so the description must compensate. It describes 'message' as 'Free-text objective for the action' and 'inputs' as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs for the action.' While these add some meaning, they lack detail on expected format, examples, or constraints, leaving the agent uncertain about valid inputs.

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 merely restates the tool name ('Run the finance domain agent action finance_growth_equity_valuation') without explaining what growth equity valuation entails. It does not differentiate this tool from sibling finance valuation tools like finance_private_company_valuation or finance_dcf_lbo_spreadsheet.

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 provided on when to use this tool over alternatives. The description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on selecting this tool among the many finance_* siblings.

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