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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and largely meets it. It explains the methodology (Normalised EBITDA plus typical multiples), the nature of the output (indicative enterprise value range, not a professional appraisal), and that it relies on user-supplied real figures. It does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior, but for a valuation calculator this is a reasonable level of transparency.

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 filler: purpose and method first, required inputs second, output and limitation third. Every sentence earns its place and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, inputs, methodology, output type, and an important caveat about not being a professional appraisal. Since there is no output schema, a slightly more detailed description of the returned range could improve completeness, but the current description gives an agent enough context to invoke the tool and interpret the general nature of the result.

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 input schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds modest context by naming annualRevenue, costOfGoodsSold, operatingExpenses, ownerPay, and fairMarketSalary as inputs and linking them to Normalised EBITDA, but it does not materially redefine or extend the parameter meanings beyond the schema.

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 verb and object: 'Estimate what a small business is worth using Normalised EBITDA and typical small-business earnings multiples.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from generic rule-of-thumb valuations and from the unrelated sibling tool forge_gpsr_requirements_check.

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 explicitly frames when to use the tool: to answer 'how much is my business worth?' using real financial figures rather than a generic rule of thumb. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the only sibling tool is unrelated, and the stated context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool appropriately.

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