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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses nothing: not the formula applied (market cap + debt − cash), not whether inputs are numbers or formatted strings, not units or currency assumptions, and not the shape of the result. For a computation tool with zero annotation coverage this is an empty disclosure.

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 a single short sentence with no padding, so it is structurally efficient, but the content is a restatement of the name rather than an informative lead, so brevity buys nothing. Adequate in form, empty in substance.

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 three-input financial calculation with no output schema and no annotations, the description should at minimum state the formula and the expected input format. Neither is present, so an agent cannot verify it will get the intended enterprise value rather than, say, an EBITDA multiple.

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 three parameters are structurally documented and the baseline of 3 applies. However, the description itself adds no meaning: the schema's own text ('Cash to process') is tautological, so nothing clarifies ordering, sign conventions, or whether values may include currency symbols despite the string type.

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 ('Enterprise Value: Enterprise value calculation') only restates the tool name and title; it names no verb, no input treatment, and no distinction from the many other finance calculation siblings (wacc, ev-ebitda, market-cap). It signals the domain but adds nothing an agent could not infer from the identifier alone.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as x402-ev-ebitda, x402-market-cap, or x402-wacc, and no prerequisites or input expectations are given. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name.

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