reoi_valuation_model

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Strict Replica' but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, modifies data, requires permissions, or any other behavioral traits. The agent is left to infer that it computes a valuation without mutation.

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 concise at two sentences and front-loaded with the model name. It conveys the core function without fluff, but could benefit from added structure or examples without sacrificing brevity.

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 the input schema (multiple nested objects, many required fields) and the existence of an output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not summarize inputs, outputs, or calculation logic, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.

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 schema description coverage reportedly at 0%, the description must compensate. However, it only vaguely refers to a 'full JSON state object' without explaining the one parameter 'request' or its nested structure. The agent lacks guidance on what fields matter.

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 identifies the tool as a Residual Operating Income Valuation Model and states it accepts a full JSON state object for valuation calculation. The name and description align perfectly, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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?

The description implies usage by stating it accepts a full JSON state object, but provides no guidance on when to use it, prerequisites, or when not to use it. Since there are no sibling tools, the lack of alternatives is less critical, but basic usage context is missing.

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