calculate_equity_value_from_enterprise_value

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It clearly states the tool computes a value, implying a read-only arithmetic operation. However, it omits the explicit formula (equity value = enterprise value + cash - debt) and any assumptions about units or sign conventions, leaving some ambiguity.

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, compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and states inputs in a clear order. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's purpose.

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 three-parameter calculator, this description is minimally adequate. The output schema likely documents the return format, and the inputs are self-explanatory. However, it lacks usage guidelines and formula details, making it complete only in the narrowest sense.

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%, so the description must compensate. The description merely re-lists the three parameter names in a sentence without adding meaning beyond their titles. It does not explain the role of each parameter in the formula, units, or potential edge cases.

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 uses a specific verb ('Calculate') and clearly identifies the resource ('equity value') and source inputs ('from enterprise value, cash, and debt'). This directly distinguishes it from the sibling tool calculate_enterprise_value, which performs the opposite calculation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions or context such as 'use when you have EV and need equity value' versus the reverse tool. The appropriate scenario is only implied by the tool name and description.

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