finance_project_valuation

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

Annotations already carry the mutation/destruction profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true), and the description adds useful context that calls route through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope. However, it does not explain what effects or destruction may occur, which is significant for a tool marked destructive. 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 compact and well-structured: a summary sentence, routing context, and a clear Args block. There is no filler, though the first sentence is low-information.

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 shape may be covered, but the tool's actual business purpose, when to use it, and its destructive side effects are unexplained. For a finance action with destructiveHint=true and many similar finance siblings, an agent lacks enough context to invoke it safely and appropriately.

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 is the only source of parameter meaning. It identifies `message` as a free-text objective and `inputs` as an optional JSON string, which adds some value, but it does not describe what structured inputs are accepted or what formats are expected.

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 to run the finance domain agent action named `finance_project_valuation`, which largely restates the tool name without explaining what the valuation does. It provides no behavioral detail that would differentiate it 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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternative finance valuation or analysis tools. The routing and scope sentence describes mechanics, not selection criteria, and no alternatives are mentioned.

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