Valuation Emerging

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, and the description is consistent with them. It adds genuine context beyond the annotations: no external calls, no authentication required, and the failure mode that unsupported fields return an error envelope rather than raising. It could go further on determinism guarantees or output shape, but the added detail is substantive.

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 routing guidance (when to use, which alternatives to prefer, safety profile) is front-loaded and each sentence carries information. It is slightly padded by the repetitive 'valuation valuation' phrase and an exhaustive sibling list when examples would suffice.

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, return values need not be spelled out, and the description instead notes the shared result envelope and the error behavior. Given the very simple one-parameter proxying surface plus rich annotations, the definition covers what an agent needs to invoke it, though the underlying computational scope remains implicit.

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 optional 'arguments' object and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it fully. The description explains the forwarding contract ('pass an arguments object matching that tool's schema') and points to the underlying tool's schema for supported fields, but adds no field-level detail. That is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names the resource ('startup valuation') and positions the tool within a broader valuation capability, and it distinguishes itself from siblings by listing the native tools it substitutes for. However, the phrasing is somewhat circular ('a startup valuation valuation capability') and never states which specific emerging-company method it computes, so the agent knows the category but not the substance.

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 tells the agent when to use it ('only for the startup valuation case that the native tools do not handle') and names six concrete alternatives (valuation_dcf, valuation_nav, valuation_cca, calculate_wacc, calculate_ecl, black_scholes_price) with a preference ordering. The gap is that it never defines what distinguishes the 'emerging' case from those alternatives, leaving the selection boundary fuzzy.

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