Valuation Cost Approach

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), the description adds that it is a deterministic computation with no external calls and no authentication, and that unsupported fields return an error envelope rather than raising. These are genuinely useful behavioral details that the annotations do not convey.

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 name is front-loaded, but the first sentence is padded ('a intangible valuation valuation capability, exposed through this server so one endpoint covers corporate, startup, and intangible valuation') and contains repetition and awkward phrasing. The useful routing and behavioral content is buried behind filler.

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 described, and safety/error behavior is covered. However, the actual computation and the shape of the expected arguments remain unspecified beyond pointing back at the tool's own schema, leaving an agent under-informed about what a correct call looks like.

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?

There is a single 'arguments' parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only adds that unsupported fields produce an error envelope, but defers the real field list to "that tool's schema," which is circular and adds little syntax or format detail.

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 category (an intangible valuation capability using the cost approach) and ties it to the tool name, but it never explains what the cost approach actually computes. It largely restates the name ("the intangible valuation 'valuation_cost_approach' case") and is circular rather than stating a concrete verb+resource with a described operation.

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 routing guidance: use only for the case the native tools do not handle, and prefer the named native tools (valuation_dcf, valuation_nav, valuation_cca, calculate_wacc, calculate_ecl, black_scholes_price) whenever they apply. This is clear when/when-not guidance with named alternatives, though the condition selecting this tool is itself circular ("the case the native tools do not handle").

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