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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully defines what constitutes an add-back (owner pay above market salary, one-offs, personal expenses), which is real behavioral context. But it never states that this is a pure, side-effect-free computation, nor describes the return shape or whether adjusted EBITDA is only produced when addBacks is supplied.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the concrete inputs. The embedded question examples add a little redundancy but earn their place by anchoring business-user phrasing. No wasted preamble.

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 calculator with no output schema, the agent is told what goes in but not what comes out — no mention of whether the result is a number, a breakdown, or both EBITDA and adjusted EBITDA. With no annotations to cover read-only/side-effect behavior, the description stops short of fully equipping the agent.

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 all four parameters are already documented, including addBacks and operatingExpenses. The description's elaboration of add-back categories largely restates the schema description rather than adding syntax, formatting, or range guidance. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb and resource — 'Calculate EBITDA and adjusted EBITDA for a small business' — and names the exact figures consumed (revenue, COGS, operating expenses, add-backs). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like forge_profit_margin or forge_business_valuation_estimate, but the metric is unambiguous.

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 usage context via the example questions it answers ('what is my EBITDA?', 'what is my adjusted EBITDA after add-backs?'), which is stronger than nothing. However, it names no alternatives and gives no when-not guidance, so the agent must infer that profit margin or valuation questions belong to sibling tools.

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