Valuation Simulation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds real operational context: no external calls, no authentication needed, deterministic computation, unsupported fields return an error envelope rather than raising, and it returns the shared result envelope. These error-handling and auth details go beyond the structured fields. It does not explain why unsupported fields occur given the permissive anyOf schema, which keeps it from 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?

Purpose and routing are reasonably front-loaded, but the prose is cluttered: 'a intangible valuation valuation capability' is awkward and redundant, and the 'intangible valuation valuation_simulation case' phrasing restates the name. Several sentences could be tightened without losing content.

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 and full annotations exist, so return values and safety profile need not be re-explained. The core gap is that an agent must go read the underlying tool's schema to learn what fields 'arguments' accepts, and the description never says which underlying tool that is. For a generic dispatcher wrapper this is adequate but leaves the main invocation question unanswered.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and there is a single optional 'arguments' property, so the schema already documents the parameter. The description adds that arguments must match the target tool's schema and that unsupported fields error out, which is mildly useful, but it does not enumerate any supported fields. Baseline 3 applies 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 identifies the resource as an 'intangible valuation' capability and frames itself as the catch-all endpoint for cases the native tools do not handle. However, it never states what the simulation actually computes or how it differs semantically from the many sibling valuation_* tools, and 'intangible valuation valuation capability' is close to circular. It distinguishes itself from siblings only as a fallback, not by describing distinct behavior.

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?

Explicit routing guidance: 'Use it only for the intangible valuation case that the native tools do not handle; prefer the native tool ... whenever it applies.' This gives a clear when-to-use and a when-not-to-use with named alternatives. It falls short of 5 because it names only 6 siblings while the tool list contains ~35, so the agent cannot tell whether an unnamed sibling (e.g. valuation_ip, valuation_advanced, valuation_comparables) counts as 'native' and should be preferred.

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