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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses almost nothing. It never states that the tool is a pure read/compute operation, what happens if cash, debt, or marketCap are omitted (all three are optional), or whether a result is computed from partial inputs. The one piece of real behavior it does add, the five free trial calls per signed wallet, is billing context rather than operation semantics.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but the first clause duplicates the second ("Enterprise Value" then "Enterprise value calculation"), and the emoji plus trial-quota sentence consumes roughly half the text without helping tool selection or invocation.

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 zero annotations, no output schema, and three undocumented optional parameters, the description needs to explain computation behavior and input expectations but does not. It leaves the agent unable to predict whether omitting parameters errors out or silently defaults to zero, which is material for a calculation tool with all-optional inputs.

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 0% and all three parameters are untyped beyond `string` with no descriptions. The description adds nothing about formats (e.g., whether cash/debt/marketCap are decimal strings, currency units, or scaled integers) or which combination is required. Only the generic finance knowledge implied by "enterprise value" gives an agent any hint of what the parameters mean.

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 is effectively a restatement of the tool name: "Enterprise Value: Enterprise value calculation." It names no inputs, no formula, and no distinguishing characteristic versus siblings such as x402-ev-ebitda, x402-market-cap, or x402-book-value-per-share. An agent can only infer from the name that this is an EV calculator.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer this over the many adjacent valuation tools in the catalog, and no prerequisites beyond the billing note about a signed wallet. The only conditional information is the free-trial quota, not usage context.

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