Valuation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the basic purpose, such as data freshness, typical response size, or any limits.

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, efficient sentence. It could be slightly more informative without sacrificing conciseness, but it is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 valuation data and the existence of multiple sibling tools, the description is minimally adequate. The output schema presumably covers return values, but the description does not explain the scope of 'overview' or what peers are compared against.

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% and the parameter 'symbol' has a clear description with an example. The tool description does not add extra meaning about what the parameter affects or how it maps to the output.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'valuation overview with peer comparison', making the tool's purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'valuation_comparison', which may cause confusion about which tool to use for detailed peer comparison.

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 such as 'valuation_comparison', 'valuation_history', or 'valuation_rank'. The description lacks context for selecting the appropriate valuation tool.

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