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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful non-schema behavior: validation rules, return values, per-success pricing via x402/Solana, and an alternate HTTPS endpoint. It does not fully explain the payment/error flow, but it is substantially transparent beyond the annotations.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose and return values. Validation rules follow immediately, and the payment/endpoint details are relevant for an openWorld x402 tool rather than filler.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with rich annotations, the description is complete: it explains purpose, valid input, return values, rejection cases, pricing, and an alternate invocation endpoint. No output schema exists, but the description states the key returned values.

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. It does so well by defining what makes parts valid: positive, nonincreasing, empty list allowed for zero, and zero parts or rises rejected. It does not restate schema bounds such as maxItems or maximum value, but those are already in the schema.

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 states a specific operation on a specific resource: check an integer partition and return its sum and length. This distinguishes it in practice from partition-generation or counting siblings, though it does not explicitly name an alternative sibling.

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 clearly specifies valid input constraints, including positive nonincreasing parts, the empty-list case, and rejection of zero parts or rises. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of siblings such as partition, partition_distinct, or partition_conjugate.

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