Valuation Compliance

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

Adds useful behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations: deterministic computation, no external calls, no authentication required, and unsupported fields return an error envelope rather than raising. These error-handling and side-effect details are not in the annotations. Minor gap on how the shared result envelope is structured, but output schema exists.

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 definition is a single dense paragraph but is somewhat repetitive ('valuation compliance (valuation_compliance)', 'intangible valuation valuation capability') and awkwardly phrased. It front-loads the identity and usage, so it is functional, but the malformed phrasing and redundancy hurt structure.

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 an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values, and it covers usage, read-only determinism, argument forwarding, and error behavior. An agent can call it correctly. The remaining gap is the vague nature of the 'compliance' case itself, but the tool is largely complete for invocation.

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?

Only one parameter ('arguments') and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema documents it fully with a description pointing to the underlying tool's schema. The description confirms that arguments are forwarded to the intangible valuation tool and that unsupported fields error out, adding a small semantic note, but the schema already carries the parameter contract. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states it is a 'valuation compliance' capability for 'intangible valuation,' a specific verb-resource pairing. However, 'valuation compliance' is tautological with the tool name and the phrase 'a intangible valuation valuation capability' is malformed and ambiguous, leaving the actual purpose of the compliance check vague. It does distinguish itself from siblings by naming them and by restricting to the intangible compliance case.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to use this only for the intangible valuation 'valuation_compliance' case that native tools don't handle, and to prefer native tools (valuation_dcf, valuation_nav, etc.) when they apply. That is a clear when-to-use and when-to-prefer-alternative rule, though it does not specify concrete conditions that select this tool beyond 'native tools don't handle it.'

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