plan_to_valuation

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It reveals the composite nature (simulate -> compute) and the valuation focus, but omits essential details: whether the simulation is stochastic, how the cash-flow line is derived, what side effects (if any) exist, and what the output structure looks like. This is insufficient for a tool that clearly chains multiple operations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that wastes no words. The 'COMPOSITE' prefix immediately signals multi-step behavior, and the rest states the core action. However, the extreme brevity borders on under-specification, but that is a completeness issue, not a conciseness defect.

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 (8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a multi-step operation), the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain how simulation inputs are provided, what cashflow_metric options exist, how rate and horizon affect the calculation, or what the return value contains. This is a bare teaser rather than a functional specification.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage across its 8 parameters, so the description must compensate. It does not. No parameter is explained: 'template', 'cashflow_metric', 'rate', 'inputs', 'horizon', 'currency', 'period_label', and 'initial_investment' remain opaque. The description only mentions 'cash-flow line' and 'NPV/IRR', which are outputs rather than inputs.

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 identifies a composite simulate-then-compute workflow, explicitly mentioning NPV/IRR valuation of a cash-flow line. This is a clear verb+resource pairing and is distinguishable from sibling tools like sim_run or calc_npv because it chains both steps. However, the 'COMPOSITE (simulate -> compute)' phrasing is somewhat cryptic and doesn't fully specify the operation sequence.

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 alternatives like sim_run, calc_npv, or calc_irr. The description implies a scenario projection followed by valuation but does not state exclusions or recommend this tool over separate sim+calc steps. Users must infer its niche from the tool name and sibling context.

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