compare_sales_multipliers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add genuine behavioral context by naming the data basis ('historical secondary market liquidity'), which tells the agent what kind of numbers these are, but it says nothing about freshness, coverage limits, or the shape of the returned multiples.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the data basis is stated immediately. It is slightly under-specified rather than verbose, which is the only knock against it.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only source of behavioral detail, and it leaves the core confusion unresolved: whether the tool takes one TLD and returns multiples for it or returns a cross-TLD table. For a simple one-parameter lookup that is an adequate but incomplete definition.

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%, with the tld parameter documented including the no-dot format example, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, and its 'across top TLDs' phrasing actually muddies how the single tld input is used.

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 states a specific output ('market valuation multiples') and enumerates the TLD scope (.com, .ai, .io, .org, ccTLDs), so the resource is identifiable. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling calculate_domain_valuation, and it creates tension with its own schema: it claims to return multiples 'across top TLDs' while the only parameter accepts a single TLD.

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 no statement of when to use this tool versus calculate_domain_valuation, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. The agent is left to infer the split from the tool names alone.

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