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

Annotations already declare this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world computation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that a break-even exit value is derived, but says nothing about currency assumptions, how dilution is treated, or what the comparison is normalized to. It adds some context without rich behavioral detail.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in one efficient sentence. The trailing promotional line pointing to an external URL is not functional guidance for invoking the tool, so the definition is slightly padded rather than waste-free.

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, the description does at least name the two outputs an agent should expect (take-home comparison and break-even exit value). For a fully specified, read-only four-parameter calculator that is reasonably complete, though it stops short of describing result structure or assumptions.

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 coverage is 100%, with all four required parameters individually described (exit value and ownership percentage per path). The description restates the two paths but adds no format, unit, or range guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb (compare) plus two named resources (bootstrapped exit vs venture-backed, diluted exit) and a concrete derived output (break-even exit value). This is clearly distinguishable from sibling calculators like arr_multiple_calculator or saas_valuation_multiple_predictor without opening any schema.

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?

The implied use case (a founder weighing bootstrapping vs raising) is easy to infer, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no conditions that select it over a sibling, and no exclusions. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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