Valuation Technology

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond them: deterministic computation, no external calls, no authentication required, and unsupported fields yielding an error envelope rather than an exception. The error-handling behavior is the most valuable disclosure.

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 rule is reasonably front-loaded, but the text is padded with awkward repetition ('intangible valuation valuation capability', 'the intangible valuation valuation_technology case') and the long parenthetical tool list. Sentences are longer than they need to be, and the self-referential naming wastes space.

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 no explanation, and the description covers behavior, auth, error handling, and fallback routing. Given a one-parameter pass-through wrapper, this is nearly sufficient; only concrete guidance on what technology valuation computes (vs. valuation_ip or valuation_saas) is missing.

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 single 'arguments' parameter is already 100% described in the schema, setting a baseline of 3. The description essentially restates the schema ('pass an arguments object matching that tool's schema') and only adds the unsupported-field error behavior. No field names, formats, or argument examples are provided to compensate further.

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 a specific resource (intangible/technology valuation) and frames it as a fallback, but the phrasing 'a intangible valuation valuation capability' and 'the intangible valuation valuation_technology case' is circular and awkward. It is distinguishable from the named native siblings, but it never clearly states what technology valuation actually computes. Purpose is implied rather than stated cleanly.

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 gives an explicit routing rule: use only for the case native tools do not handle, and prefer valuation_dcf, valuation_nav, valuation_cca, calculate_wacc, calculate_ecl, or black_scholes_price whenever they apply. The named alternatives are concrete, though the selecting condition ('the case the native tools do not handle') stays abstract since no examples are given.

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