Get Enterprise Value

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the specific metrics returned, which is useful because there is no output schema, but it does not disclose any further behavioral traits such as pagination, defaults, or historical depth.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and lists the metrics without excess words. Every word earns its place.

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 has 8 parameters and no output schema, but the schema thoroughly documents all parameters. The description explains what the return will contain (the five metrics), which is the key missing piece. It does not explain date/period filtering, but that is available in the schema, so the description is adequate for an experienced agent.

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 all 8 parameters already have descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond listing the metric names, which maps to the return value rather than to parameters.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Get' with resource 'enterprise value metrics' and explicitly lists the metrics (market cap, EV, EV/Sales, EV/EBITDA, EV/EBIT). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling valuation tools like get_valuation_multiples by focusing on enterprise value specifically.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any when/when-not conditions or reference sibling tools like get_valuation_multiples or get_profitability_ratios. The description simply states what it returns.

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