finance_peer_valuation_multiples

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions routing details (JWT, tenant, company scope) but says nothing about side effects, permissions, rate limits, or what happens during execution.

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 very short but fails to convey essential purpose and usage. It is under-specified rather than elegantly concise.

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?

Despite having an output schema (which could reduce need to explain returns), the description omits fundamental information about what the tool does and how to use it effectively. The context is completely inadequate for a tool with many closely related siblings.

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 two parameters (`message` and `inputs`) have no schema descriptions and the tool description adds no meaning beyond their names. The free-text `message` and JSON `inputs` are left completely undefined.

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_peer_valuation_multiples`' without explaining what peer valuation multiples are or what the tool actually computes. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like `finance_private_company_valuation` or `finance_growth_equity_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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any context about suitable scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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