calculate_intrinsic_value_per_share

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosure. It accurately describes a pure calculation with no side effects, but offers no information about edge cases, assumptions, or numerical handling. For a straightforward calculator, this is adequate but not rich.

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 one short sentence with no filler, making it highly concise. It is appropriately sized for a simple calculation tool, though it could include more detail.

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?

The tool is simple with two parameters and an output schema, and the description covers the core purpose. However, it lacks usage guidance and parameter semantics, making it minimally complete rather than fully self-sufficient.

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 tool description must compensate. The phrase 'per diluted share' hints at dividing by shares, but it does not clarify the meaning of 'equity_value' or 'diluted_shares_outstanding' beyond their names, nor does it explain the exact computation.

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's purpose: 'Calculate intrinsic value per diluted share.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the 'per diluted share' phrasing distinguishes it from sibling tools like enterprise value or DCF valuation. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives, so it doesn't fully differentiate itself.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus others, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The description simply states what the tool does without any context for appropriate usage.

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