Valuation Rank

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, which cover primary safety traits. The description adds that it returns daily valuation rank, but does not disclose error handling, data availability, or output structure. With annotations handling the main behavioral context, this is adequate but not enhanced.

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 concise with two sentences: one stating purpose and metrics, the other specifying date format. No superfluous words. While efficient, it could be more structured (e.g., bullets) for quicker parsing.

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 no output schema, the description should hint at the response structure (e.g., date, rank, industry). It only mentions metrics but not the format or frequency. For a data retrieval tool with rich context from annotations and siblings, this is a notable gap.

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 all parameters described. The description restates the date format 'yyyymmdd' already in the schema, adding minimal value. It does not explain the meaning of the rank output or parameter interactions. Baseline score of 3 applies due to high schema coverage.

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 daily valuation rank (PE/PB/PS/dividend yield industry percentile) for a security over a date range. The verb 'Get' and specific metrics provide clarity, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling valuation tools like 'valuation_history' or 'industry_valuation'.

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 rank percentile data over a date range, and specifies date format (yyyymmdd). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'valuation_history' for actual values or 'industry_valuation' for aggregate industry metrics.

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