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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add one useful behavioral trait: missing inputs fall back to documented defaults. However, it does not disclose whether the calculation is purely read-only, whether it performs any external data lookups, or how the output is returned. For a simple calculator the default-fallback note is helpful, but more behavioral context would be expected.

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 description is a single sentence that front-loads the action and then lists the key outputs, making it easy to scan. The 'calculator calculator' phrasing is redundant, and 'documented defaults' is slightly indirect, but overall every element contributes useful information.

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?

For a four-parameter tool with no output schema, the description lists what will be calculated and mentions default fallback behavior, but it does not explain the output format or detail how each input affects the results. It is functionally adequate but leaves the agent to infer some details, especially because the tool has no annotations and no output schema.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters and their defaults. The description adds only marginal semantic value by referencing EBITDA and the multiple, but it does not clarify cash/debt roles beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate because 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 clearly says to run a business valuation calculator and enumerates the outputs (enterprise value, indicative value to shareholders, median multiples), so an agent understands what the tool does. It also distinguishes itself from sibling describe/enquiry tools by using the imperative 'Run'. The redundant 'calculator calculator' wording and lack of explicit sibling differentiation keep it from a 5.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus siblings like calculator_describe or submit_enquiry. The description implies this is the computational tool among the siblings, but it never states intended scenarios, exclusions, or prerequisites. An agent must infer usage context from the tool name and sibling names.

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