Valuation Customer

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

Beyond the annotations' readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, and openWorldHint, the description adds that the computation is deterministic, requires no authentication, makes no external calls, returns an error envelope for unsupported fields, and uses a shared result envelope. These are useful behavioral details an agent needs when deciding whether the fallback is safe and appropriate. Nothing in the description contradicts the annotations.

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 mostly front-loaded and covers purpose, usage, and behavior in order. However, it contains redundancy and awkward phrasing, especially 'a intangible valuation valuation capability' and the broad claim that 'one endpoint covers corporate, startup, and intangible valuation'. Those sentences do not clearly earn their place for this specific tool.

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?

Annotations cover the safety profile and an output schema exists, so return values do not need explanation. The description still leaves a substantial gap by not explaining what this fallback actually does or how to populate the arguments object beyond referring to an unspecified 'that tool's schema'. Given the one-parameter wrapper shape, it is minimally adequate but not fully complete.

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?

The input schema already has full description coverage for its single 'arguments' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that arguments must match the underlying tool's schema and that unsupported fields produce an error envelope, which is useful but does not add field-level semantics. No additional parameter meaning is provided beyond what the schema documents.

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 fallback intangible valuation capability and names the 'valuation_customer' case, but it does not specify what this operation actually computes. Phrases like 'intangible valuation valuation_customer case' largely restate the tool name rather than explaining the resource or calculation. It does distinguish from siblings by positioning itself as the non-native fallback, which keeps it above tautology but still 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 explicitly says to use this tool only when the native tools do not handle the intangible valuation case, and it names several preferred alternatives including valuation_dcf, valuation_nav, and calculate_wacc. The missing piece is a precise explanation of when the native tools 'apply', which makes the routing condition somewhat circular. Still, the when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance is clear.

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