Valuation Time Value

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false), it adds useful behavioral context: deterministic computation, no external calls, no authentication required, and that unsupported fields return an error envelope instead of raising. That error-handling disclosure is genuinely non-derivable from the structured fields.

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 and safety facts are front-loaded and the text is compact for the amount it covers. There is minor redundancy ('intangible valuation valuation capability') and slightly awkward phrasing, but no wasted padding.

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 described, and the annotations cover the safety profile; the description still supplies routing, auth, determinism, and error behavior. The remaining gap is that it points the agent at 'that tool's schema' for the arguments object without exposing those fields, which is a real limitation for a proxy-style tool.

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 only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema itself already documents it, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds the meaningful detail that harmless extra fields produce an error envelope rather than an exception, but gives no insight into the forwarded sub-schema's supported fields.

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 valuation capability' for the 'valuation_time_value' case, essentially restating the name without explaining what a time-value valuation actually computes. It never distinguishes the resource from sibling valuation tools on domain grounds; the only differentiation offered is a routing preference, not a statement of purpose.

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 states when to use this tool ('only for the intangible valuation valuation_time_value case that the native tools do not handle') and names the alternatives (valuation_dcf, valuation_nav, valuation_cca, calculate_wacc, calculate_ecl, black_scholes_price) with a clear 'prefer native' rule. The selection condition is somewhat circular since the reader cannot tell what the fallback case actually covers, keeping it below a 5.

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