finance_private_company_valuation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden. It only mentions routing through a dispatcher with JWT/tenant/company scope, but fails to disclose side effects (e.g., does it create or update data?), error conditions, rate limits, or any behavioral traits beyond technical plumbing.

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 relatively concise with a clear structure: a one-line summary followed by parameter explanations. However, the summary and parameter descriptions could be more succinct and front-loaded. There is no unnecessary repetition.

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?

An output schema exists, so return value details are not required. However, the description lacks crucial operational context: what the valuation action actually does, what types of private companies it applies to, prerequisites, and error handling. Given the moderate complexity and presence of output schema, the description is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 parameter descriptions in the docstring add minimal meaning: 'message: Free-text objective' and 'inputs: Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. Since the schema itself has empty descriptions (0% coverage), the text provides some clarification, but it remains vague and doesn't specify format, constraints, or examples.

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 clearly states it runs the 'finance_private_company_valuation' domain agent action. The name is specific and differentiates from siblings in the finance domain (e.g., finance_peer_valuation_multiples, finance_project_valuation). However, it doesn't explain what the action accomplishes (e.g., 'calculates the valuation of a private company').

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 versus alternatives. There are no prerequisites, use cases, or scenarios mentioned. The description only states the technical routing mechanism, not usage context.

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