get_fair_value

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the estimate is automated and not a target price or recommendation, which is important behavioral context. However, it does not mention data freshness, update frequency, or limitations of the models.

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 the main purpose in the first sentence followed by output details and a note. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant information, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points).

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?

Without an output schema, the description adequately explains the return values (composite fair value, price-to-fair-value ratio, model outputs, confidence, assumptions, notes). It also warns about the non-investment-recommendation nature. Slightly missing details on input validation or error cases.

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%, so the parameter descriptions in the schema are complete. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it mentions the models used but does not explicitly link them to parameters like discount_rate or terminal_growth.

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's purpose: 'Get estimated fair value for an NZX company using 3 valuation models.' It specifies the specific verb (get), resource (fair value), and scope (NZX company, three models). The tool is distinct from siblings, which are other financial analysis 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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only notes the output and that it's an automated estimate, but no explicit 'use this when you need fair value' or comparison to similar tools like get_stock_prices.

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