finance_project_valuation

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

Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions routing through a dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope. It does not indicate read-only or destructive nature, side effects, authorization requirements, or rate limits.

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 (3 sentences) and front-loads the action name. It could be slightly more efficient by combining the routing detail with the purpose, but it is not verbose.

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?

Given the complexity of project valuation and the presence of an output schema, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain what a project valuation involves, what inputs are typically expected in 'inputs', or what the output contains. More context is needed for an agent to use 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description usefully adds that 'message' is a free-text objective and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string for structured inputs. This goes beyond the schema's defaults, though more specific input expectations would be helpful.

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 states the tool runs a specific action ('finance_project_valuation') but does not explain what project valuation entails. Given sibling tools like 'finance_private_company_valuation' and 'finance_growth_equity_valuation', the purpose is too vague for an agent to differentiate.

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 the many other finance tools. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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