Compare industries' M&A multiples

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

Annotations cover safety (readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive), and the description still adds real behavioral detail: the n>=10 threshold, name-matching behavior shared with get_valuation_multiples, the INSUFFICIENT DATA fallback instead of estimation, and per-row flagging of unmatched names and industry-group ids. That is exactly the disclosure that prevents an agent from misinterpreting sparse output.

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?

Dense and front-loaded — the core comparison behavior comes first, then the fallback rules, then the sibling routing. Slight deduction because the leading 'Read-only.' restates annotation fields and the first sentence is heavily packed.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't explain return structure, and it still covers thresholds, fallbacks, name resolution, and the alternative tool. Nothing an agent needs to select or invoke this correctly is missing.

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 baseline is 3; the schema already documents metric values, the 2-6 item constraint, and every size_bracket enum with dollar ranges. The description adds only marginal framing (one metric at a time, size_bracket for a single bracket) rather than new semantics.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource (compares 2-6 industries side by side on one metric) and enumerates exactly what output each row carries: median multiple, 25th-75th percentile, and deal count n per EV bracket. A reader can distinguish it from get_valuation_multiples without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit routing rule with the sibling named: 'Use it for which sells for more, X or Y? questions; use get_valuation_multiples for one industry's full breakdown.' It also states the condition for size_bracket (single-bracket comparison vs. omit for all brackets).

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