Valuation Income Methods

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real behavioral context: no external calls, no authentication, and the error-handling contract that unsupported fields return an error envelope rather than raising. The 'deterministic computation' and 'returns the shared result envelope' lines largely restate annotations/output schema, keeping this short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the tool name and its capability, followed by the routing rule, then the behavioral contract — a sensible order with no padding. Minor waste from repeated 'valuation' wording and the redundant restatement of read-only/idempotent traits already in annotations.

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 explained, and the description does state the error contract. However, for a dispatcher whose entire payload is an opaque 'arguments' object, the description leaves the agent unable to determine which fields to supply, which is the single most important thing to convey here.

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 exists with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the error-envelope behavior for unsupported fields, but the argument bag is an open object with additionalProperties=true and the description points the agent back to 'that tool's schema' — the same tool — rather than enumerating any supported income-method fields, so no real field semantics are conveyed.

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 a verb-adjacent capability (intangible valuation via income methods) and gives the tool's routing identity, but it never says what an income method actually computes (e.g., DCF-based income approach, relief-from-royalty, MPEEM). The phrasing 'a intangible valuation valuation capability' and the self-referential 'intangible valuation valuation_income_methods case' restate the name rather than define the operation, 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?

There is an explicit when-to-use rule ('only for the intangible valuation case that the native tools do not handle') and a named preference list, which is better than most. But the alternatives listed (dcf, nav, cca, wacc, ecl, black_scholes) omit the obvious competing siblings such as valuation_ip, valuation_royalty_analysis, valuation_technology, and valuation_customer, and 'the case the native tools do not handle' is never defined, so the routing boundary remains fuzzy.

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