Get M&A valuation multiples

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds substantive behavior: cells with fewer than 10 deals are withheld and never estimated, the data window is 2018-2026, and group ids return per-sub-vertical medians rather than a single figure. What is missing is a note on latency/caching or the response shape, but the critical statistical caveat is disclosed in detail.

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?

Front-loaded with the core question and the read-only constraint, and every clause carries information. It is dense, but the four sentences pack return shape, coverage period, suppression rule, and alternatives without 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?

An output schema exists, so return-field documentation is not required, and the description still sketches the result shape (IQR, n, brackets). Combined with the explicit exclusion of company-specific valuation and the sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 both parameters are fully documented in structured fields. The description adds that an industry group id yields a median per sub-vertical, which is return behavior rather than parameter meaning, and it never mentions size_bracket at all. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Specific verb and resource: answers the multiple question for ONE industry and returns median EV/EBITDA and EV/Revenue with IQR and deal counts. It explicitly bounds scope ('Population medians only: it does not value a specific business'), which separates it from a business-valuation tool.

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?

Names both alternatives and the condition that selects them: compare_industries for side-by-side multi-industry views and get_multiples_trend for year-by-year history. It also implies list_industries as the source of valid ids via the schema, leaving no routing ambiguity.

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