run_dcf_sensitivity_analysis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only says 'return a structured grid' without explaining the calculation methodology, input requirements, or output format details. The grid structure and how results are computed remain opaque.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler, but it is too brief to provide substantive guidance. Still, it earns its place by stating the core output.

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?

Has output schema (so return values are specified elsewhere), but the tool has two array parameters whose interaction defines the sensitivity grid, and this is not explained. With no annotations and no parameter discussion, the description is insufficient for a complex tool.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention any parameters. It fails to explain the meaning of discount_rates, terminal_growth_rates, or the relationship between them that defines the grid.

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 it returns a structured DCF sensitivity grid for charting or tabulation, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like calculate_dcf_valuation which likely returns a single value.

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 implies use when a sensitivity grid is needed for charting or tabulation, but it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it. Given the many sibling financial tools, this is a gap.

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