calculate_enterprise_value

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool's purpose but does not disclose the formula (EV = market cap + debt - cash) or any assumptions about the inputs (e.g., debt vs. net debt). This is a pure calculation, so side-effect risks are low, but the missing formula is a notable gap.

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 a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the primary action and clearly states the inputs, achieving high efficiency.

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 simple calculation tool, the description is adequate but not complete. It does not state the exact formula or handling of edge cases (e.g., negative values). An output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the description could benefit from explicitly mentioning the formula to fully contextualize the calculation.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions market capitalization, debt, and cash, which maps directly to the parameter names, but does not explain the relationship (e.g., that cash is subtracted) or units. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema titles.

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 enterprise value from specific inputs, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like calculate_equity_value_from_enterprise_value, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you need enterprise value from market cap, debt, and cash) but does not provide explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternatives. The context is clear but no exclusions are stated.

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