Valuation Ip

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: deterministic computation with no external calls, no authentication required, and specifically that unsupported fields return an error envelope rather than raising. The only gap is that it doesn't describe the shape of the shared result envelope, but that is covered by the output schema.

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 guidance is reasonably front-loaded and free of padding, but the opening clause "a intangible valuation valuation capability" is malformed and repetitive, and the sentence about the arguments object is somewhat circular. It is adequate but not tightly written.

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?

For a thin proxy wrapper with annotations, an output schema, and a fully documented single parameter, the description covers the essentials: safety profile, no-auth, error behavior, and return envelope. What is missing is any concrete statement of what an IP valuation does or when it is the correct choice, which matters given ~34 valuation siblings.

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 parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description confirms the argument is forwarded to the underlying tool and that unsupported fields produce an error, which adds a little operational meaning, but it provides no field-level detail beyond pointing at an external schema the agent cannot see here.

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 labels this an "intangible valuation capability" and calls out corporate/startup/intangible coverage, but it never specifies what IP valuation actually computes (patents, trademarks, royalty relief, etc.). The phrasing "intangible valuation 'valuation_ip' case" largely restates the name, so the agent learns the domain but not the concrete operation, and differentiation from siblings like valuation_royalty_analysis is thin.

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 names the native alternatives (valuation_dcf, valuation_nav, valuation_cca, calculate_wacc, calculate_ecl, black_scholes_price) and says to prefer them when they apply, which is real routing guidance. However, the core directive "use it only for the 'valuation_ip' case" is circular and never defines what that case is, so the agent still cannot tell when this tool genuinely applies versus valuation_royalty_analysis or valuation_technology.

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