value_stock_ddm

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

No annotations provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It mentions the formula and constraint, but does not explain the output format, potential errors, or whether it's a read-only calculation. Lacks detail on dependencies and side effects.

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 concise (three sentences), front-loaded with purpose, and includes the formula and a key constraint. No unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more descriptive without losing brevity.

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 three required parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the output (likely a stock value), units, or potential error conditions. The output schema exists but is not referenced.

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%, but the description does not individually explain the three parameters. It uses D1 in the formula without clarifying that D1 = current_dividend * (1+growth_rate). Growth_rate and required_return are not defined. Insufficient compensation for missing schema descriptions.

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 values a stock using the Gordon Growth Model (DDM), provides the formula, and specifies it's for stable dividend-paying companies. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like value_stock_two_stage_ddm and value_stock_dcf.

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 gives a condition ('For stable, dividend-paying companies') and a constraint ('required_return must be > growth_rate'), but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternatives among siblings.

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