getLeveredDCFValuation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds no further behavioral context — nothing about data freshness, whose DCF model/assumptions are used, units of the output, or whether the server computes the valuation on demand.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and resource, which is good, but the second sentence largely restates the first ('incorporates the impact of debt' vs 'accounting for its debt obligations') in promotional language that does not add operational 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?

For a single-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description needn't explain return values and it does convey what the tool computes. However, it leaves unclear whether the response is a single valuation figure, a full DCF projection, or assumption inputs, which an agent would want to know.

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 100% for the single 'symbol' parameter, so the schema already does the documentation work. The description mentions a 'company' but adds no syntax, exchange, or ticker-format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific resource (levered DCF valuation) and a clear analytical verb, and the phrase 'post-debt valuation' distinguishes it conceptually from the plain DCF sibling. It never names getDCFValuation or calculateCustomLeveredDCF explicitly, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The only hint is 'accounting for its debt obligations,' which weakly implies use for debt-heavy companies, but the description never routes the agent between this tool, getDCFValuation (unlevered), and calculateCustomLeveredDCF.

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