finance_peer_valuation_multiples

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

The annotations mark this as destructiveHint=true, but the description gives no warning or explanation of side effects, data mutations, or external impacts. It does not say whether it creates, updates, deletes, or only reads information. The agent is left blind to the destructive nature of the operation.

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, direct, and contains no redundant filler beyond the generic routing sentence. It is easy to read and does not waste words, though the brevity comes at the cost of substantive 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?

The description does not mention return format, output semantics, error behavior, or any postconditions. It also fails to clarify what 'peer valuation multiples' means in a finance domain context. With an output schema reportedly present but not described, the agent still has no idea what the action returns or what side effects may occur.

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?

The description gives minimal semantics: message is a 'free-text objective' and inputs is an 'optional JSON string of structured inputs.' However, it does not explain how these two parameters interact, what structure the JSON should follow, or what values are expected. Since the schema itself has no descriptions, this small addition is insufficient.

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' and repeats the tool name, without stating what the action actually does or what peer valuation multiples are. It provides no concrete behavior beyond the name, so an agent cannot tell what outcome to expect. It is not fully tautological, but it is very close to a generic wrapper.

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 on when to use this tool versus any of the many sibling tools. The mention of routing through a domain-agent dispatcher describes mechanics, not usage context. No selection criteria, prerequisites, or alternative tools are indicated.

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