equity_valuation

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral context: the scoring logic (positive/negative), the effect of a fragile balance sheet halving positive scores, and the output structure. No contradictions 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 well-structured with sections, concisely explains the methodology, and provides examples. Every sentence contributes useful information. Slightly verbose on the 'Args' section which duplicates schema info, but overall efficient.

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 tool's complexity (single parameter with two fields, output schema exists), the description is fairly complete: it explains the return values, scoring, and examples. However, it lacks latency or data freshness info, which would be helpful for an agent planning calls.

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 reported as 0%, but the actual schema does contain descriptions for parameters. However, the description text only restates the parameter names and types without adding any new meaning beyond the schema. The description does not compensate for the low coverage by explaining the significance of parameters or their usage.

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 the tool estimates fair value and financial health for a stock, using specific methodology (forward EPS × sector P/E band). It also names the data source (Yahoo Finance). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like equity_get_quote or equity_analyst_consensus.

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 outlines the tool's function and provides examples, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like equity_get_quote for current price or equity_analyst_consensus for analyst targets. Usage context is implied but not directly compared.

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