camelot_equity_dilution_calculator

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

The annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds minimal behavioral context. The phrase 'Local browser processing' hints at privacy, which goes beyond annotations and is useful. However, it does not disclose that it is a pure client-side calculation, nor does it contradict annotations. Given annotations already cover idempotency and safety, the addition of local processing earns a 3.

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 relatively concise, but the phrase 'and investment rounds..' contains a typo and is slightly redundant. The canonical URL is useful but not essential for core description. The structure could be improved by front-loading the main function and separating the URL into a dedicated field. The length is acceptable, but the quality is middling.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, the description covers the core functionality and mentions local browser processing. However, it does not specify the output format or what the result will be, though there is an output schema. The presence of an output schema mitigates this, but the description could be more complete by mentioning the calculation method or typical use case.

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?

The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the schema already explains each parameter. The description does not add any semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as how they interact or the expected units. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and no extra description is provided.

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 clearly states the tool calculates founder dilution, option pool expansions, and investment rounds, and includes a canonical URL for more detail. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from the related camelot_cap_table_manager, which may also involve dilution calculations. Thus, the purpose is clear but sibling differentiation is weak.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like camelot_cap_table_manager. It does not mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The only contextual hint is the canonical URL, which is not proper usage guidance. The agent is left to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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