dcf_valuation

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

The description discloses that the tool does not forecast, guess, or default inputs, that assumptions are echoed back for auditability, and that structural issues like wacc <= terminalGrowthRate are reported in an issues field. It also states it renders no verdict, aligning with the readOnly and idempotent annotations.

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 verbose and repeats similar caveats multiple times (e.g., does not forecast, does not render a verdict, assumptions are echoed). The core message could be conveyed in fewer sentences without losing important context.

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?

In the absence of an output schema, the description mentions key output elements: echoed assumptions, an issues field for structural problems, and fairValuePerShare as a non-advice result. It also points to generate_report for the investment thesis, making the surrounding workflow reasonably 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?

The schema already documents most parameters with meaningful descriptions (e.g., wacc, revenueGrowthPath, incrementalNwcPctRevenueChange). The description adds no further parameter-level detail and leaves some parameters like baseRevenue, taxRate, sharesOutstanding, and companyName without explanatory text.

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 that the tool runs a mechanical, transparent discounted-cash-flow valuation from explicitly supplied assumptions. It names the key inputs and makes the tool's scope unambiguous.

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?

It tells the caller to supply realistic assumptions reasoned from the company's financials and sector context, and advises pairing the output with an investment thesis rather than treating fair value as advice. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling valuation tools, but the guidance is clear enough.

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