Comparable company analysis

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return shape ('an implied value per multiple and an average'), but says nothing about data sourcing for peers, precision, or behavior when peer_metrics is omitted. Some added value, but nothing beyond the baseline.

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?

Two tight sentences: method first, routing second, output third. No filler, well front-loaded, and every clause is load-bearing.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description need not explain return values, and it names the method and the primary alternative. It is slightly incomplete on the null-default behavior of peer_metrics/target_metrics (does the tool fetch or require them?) and on differentiation from the other comparable/market-approach siblings.

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 ticker, peer_metrics and target_metrics are already documented in the schema. The description echoes the multiples (P/E, P/B, P/S, EV/EBITDA) but adds no syntax, format, or defaulting semantics beyond what the schema states (median vs mean aggregation is the only real addition).

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('value a company by applying median peer multiples...') and enumerates the multiples used, so the method is unmistakable. It distinguishes itself from valuation_dcf. However, it never distinguishes itself from the closely named siblings valuation_comparables and valuation_market_approach, which an agent could reasonably confuse with this tool.

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?

'Use this for market-based pricing when comparable peers are available; for intrinsic value use valuation_dcf' gives an explicit condition plus a named alternative. The gap is that the two most likely alternatives (valuation_comparables, valuation_market_approach) are never addressed, leaving real routing ambiguity within the sibling set.

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