Valuation Capm

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, and the description goes beyond them by disclosing no external calls, no authentication, and that unsupported fields yield an error envelope rather than raising. This is useful operational context beyond the structured hints.

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 front-loaded with the routing rule and is reasonably sized for a proxy tool. Minor slack from boilerplate phrasing and the 'startup valuation valuation' redundancy, but no wasted paragraphs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the routing/behavior story is complete. However, the actual callable semantics are delegated to an external schema that the agent cannot see, leaving the arguments' accepted fields opaque.

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% and there is a single passthrough 'arguments' object, so the baseline is 3. The description only adds that arguments must match 'that tool's schema' (which is not supplied here) and that unsupported fields error out; it does not clarify any expected field semantics.

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 identifies the tool as a 'startup valuation capability' but never states what CAPM actually computes (e.g., cost of equity), and it contains a redundant phrase ('startup valuation valuation capability'). It does distinguish itself from siblings by positioning itself as a fallback, which lifts it above pure tautology, but the core purpose stays vague.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('use it only for the startup valuation valuation_capm case that the native tools do not handle') and names concrete alternatives (valuation_dcf, valuation_nav, valuation_cca, calculate_wacc, calculate_ecl, black_scholes_price) to prefer. The only weakness is the somewhat circular naming of its own case rather than describing the computation that should trigger it.

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