finance_growth_equity_valuation

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

The description does not contradict the annotations, and it adds useful context about routing through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher under JWT, tenant, and company scope. However, despite destructiveHint=true, it does not disclose what side effects or changes the action may cause.

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 mostly readable, but the opening sentence is tautological and the Args block largely duplicates the input schema. The routing/scoping sentence is the only unique, useful content.

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 destructive domain-agent action, the description omits the actual purpose, expected input content, output behavior, and potential consequences. It does not provide enough information for an agent to confidently select it among the many similarly named finance_* tools.

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, but it only restates the schema fields with minimal glosses: 'Free-text objective' and 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. It never explains what structured inputs the finance growth equity valuation action expects or how to construct them.

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 only says 'Run the finance domain agent action finance_growth_equity_valuation', which essentially restates the tool name. It provides no functional definition of what growth equity valuation does, nor how it differs from siblings like finance_peer_valuation_multiples or finance_private_company_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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus the many similar finance_* actions. The description only explains the mechanical routing and auth scope, not the intended use case, prerequisites, or situations where another tool would be better.

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