Valuation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds critical transparency: for US accounts querying a .US symbol, the response shape differs from the output schema. This detail about output variability goes beyond what annotations provide, aiding correct interpretation.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides a crucial behavioral caveat. No superfluous words; information is front-loaded and 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 simple parameter set and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the special output shape discrepancy. It does not need to explain standard return values. The mention of peer comparison adds context. Completeness is high for a tool of this complexity.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear description for the 'symbol' parameter. The description adds semantic value by linking the parameter value to a behavioral change: different response shapes for .US symbols. This informs the agent about a conditional effect of the parameter.

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 retrieves a 'valuation overview with peer comparison', providing a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from siblings like 'valuation_comparison' by noting an output shape quirk for US .US symbols, but does not explicitly contrast with all sister tools.

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 for obtaining valuation with peer comparison and warns about a special case for US accounts with .US symbols. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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