scenario_analysis

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

The description transparently states that the tool 'invents no assumptions of its own' and 'reports each case's own validity issues,' making its behavior clear. It also repeatedly notes 'Pure calculation — no search,' which aligns perfectly with the readOnlyHint and idempotent annotations, ensuring no hidden side effects are implied.

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 repetitive, repeating phrases like 'Like dcf_valuation' and 'Pure calculation — no search' multiple times. This redundancy adds no new information and detracts from clarity, making it less concise than necessary for the tool's relatively simple purpose.

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?

The description explains the high-level behavior (three DCF runs, optional sensitivity grid) and the role of user-supplied scenarios, but it omits crucial details such as the exact structure of sensitivity axes, how companyName is used, or what output is produced. Given the tool's moderate complexity with nested objects and no output schema, the description provides enough to understand the general workflow but is incomplete for full autonomous use.

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 description only refers to 'deltas' and 'grid values' without mapping them to specific parameter names like baseAssumptions, bullDelta, bearDelta, sensitivity, or companyName. Since schema coverage is only 20% and the tool has nested structures, the description does not sufficiently compensate for the lack of per-parameter explanations, leaving many parameters undefined.

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 function: it runs the same DCF three times (base, bull, bear) with user-supplied deltas and optionally builds a 2D sensitivity grid. It also emphasizes that it is a pure calculation with no search, leaving no ambiguity about its primary purpose.

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 explicitly instructs that the user supplies deltas and grid values based on their own assessment, and it references dcf_valuation as a comparable tool, suggesting a similar usage pattern. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer scenario_analysis over other valuation tools like comparables_valuation, so guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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