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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely new operational context: it is a paid call at $0.001 USDC per successful call via x402 on Solana, plus an alternate HTTPS endpoint. The domain bound (1-400) is restated, which is mildly redundant with the schema but reinforces the valid range.

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?

Front-loaded with the core definition, followed by calibration examples, bounds, and commercial terms in a tight sequence. Every sentence carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 single-integer, read-only math tool with no output schema, the description supplies the indexing convention, bounds, sample values, and payment/transport details. Missing only out-of-range error behavior, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 carry parameter meaning, and it does: n counts from 1, runs 1 to 400, and four concrete n-to-value examples (1→1, 10→12, 18→30, 20→36) pin down the indexing convention. It does not explain what happens for out-of-range n, which is the remaining gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: returns the nth Hamming number, counting from 1. That is unambiguous and distinct from the many siblings. It does not, however, name or distinguish itself from near siblings like hamming_index or hamming_next, which an agent would have to inspect separately.

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?

Usage is implied by the worked examples (indexed lookup into the Hamming sequence) but the description never says when to prefer this over hamming_index, hamming_next, or hamming. No exclusions or alternative selection criteria are given.

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