finance_private_company_valuation

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

Annotations already indicate it is not read-only and may be destructive (destructiveHint: true). The description adds a minor note about routing through the platform's dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, which gives some context but does not elaborate on side effects or side effects beyond that. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded, but it is also repetitive and lacks substantive content. It is concise in length but not in value, as it mostly repeats the tool name and generic infrastructure details.

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 and two parameters, the description gives no information about return values, expected input format, or how this tool fits into the broader finance domain workflow. The absence of usage guidelines and unclear parameter semantics leaves the agent under-equipped to invoke it correctly.

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 parameters 'message' and 'inputs' are described only at a generic level ('Free-text objective' and 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs'). This provides minimal meaning but does not clarify what kind of objective or structured inputs are expected for a valuation. The schema itself has zero description coverage, so the description adds just a small amount of context.

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 essentially restates the tool name ('Run the finance domain agent action `finance_private_company_valuation`') without explaining what a private company valuation entails or what specific outcome the action produces. It does not distinguish this from the many other domain-agent actions in the sibling list.

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 any alternative. It does not state conditions, prerequisites, or scenarios where this action is appropriate, leaving the agent to guess.

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