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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It clearly states the methodology, the input categories, and the output type (indicative enterprise value range), and includes a limitation statement ('not a professional appraisal'). It does not address edge cases or assumptions about debt/cash/working capital, but for an indicative estimator the disclosure is strong.

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 three sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose, then supplies method, input types, and output format, including an important caveat. Every sentence earns its place.

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 five-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, inputs, methodology, and output format (an enterprise value range). Minor gaps remain: it does not describe the exact structure of the range or the underlying assumptions for the multiples. These are non-blocking for a simple estimator, so a 4 is appropriate.

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%, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining how the inputs relate to Normalised EBITDA and why both owner-pay and fair-market salary are needed. The schema descriptions are minimal ('Annual revenue'), so the description's framing around real figures and owner-role cost enriches the parameter semantics.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Estimate what a small business is worth' and further specifies the method (Normalised EBITDA and typical multiples). It directly answers a concrete question ('how much is my business worth?') and clearly differentiates itself from generic rules of thumb and professional appraisals. The sibling tool is in an unrelated domain, so no further distinction is necessary.

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 description gives a clear use context: estimate business value from real financial figures rather than a rule-of-thumb approximation. It also states an exclusion: the result is indicative and not a professional appraisal. However, it does not explicitly discuss alternative tools or broader when-not-to-use scenarios, stopping short of a 5.

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