Get Valuation Multiples

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the behavior that it returns last/avg/high/low values, which is useful context beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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?

A single sentence that enumerates the exact metrics and aggregate types. No filler, every word conveys essential information. Ideal conciseness.

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?

Given the rich schema (all parameters described) and annotations (read-only, non-destructive), the description adequately completes the picture by listing the specific multiples and the output summary forms (last/avg/high/low). It does not explain response shape in detail, but for a simple retrieval tool this is sufficient.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific details; it focuses on output content (the multiples). This is baseline performance for fully-documented schema.

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 retrieves valuation multiples and lists the exact metrics (P/E, P/B, P/S, P/CF, P/FCF, EV/Sales, EV/EBITDA, EV/EBIT). This specific list distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_profitability_ratios or get_enterprise_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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the metric list implies its scope, it does not mention that other tools like get_enterprise_value cover EV components or that get_profitability_ratios covers margins. The description provides no context or exclusions.

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