dcf_analysis

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so no mutation is implied. The description adds transparency by stating the computation uses Gordon Growth and returns a dict with NPV, terminal value, IRR, and breakdowns, which is more than the annotation alone provides.

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 compact and well-structured with Args and Returns sections. Every sentence provides useful information, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly specifies the return structure (NPV, terminal value, IRR, breakdowns). It documents all required inputs and key conventions. Some financial edge cases (e.g., IRR with negative cash flows) are unstated, but for selection and basic invocation it is sufficiently complete.

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?

Although the schema description coverage is 0%, the Args block thoroughly documents all four parameters, including period-ordering, negative year-0 convention, decimal discount rate, perpetuity growth, and optional initial investment. This fully compensates for missing schema descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Compute Discounted Cash Flow valuation with a Gordon Growth Model terminal value.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like time_value_calc or loan_amortization.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: any DCF valuation with a Gordon Growth terminal value. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is specific enough to guide selection.

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