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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: values past 15 digits are returned as decimal strings (a return-format quirk with real parsing consequences), plus a per-call price of $0.001 USDC via x402 on Solana and an HTTPS mirror endpoint.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by constraints, the example, the return-format rule and the cost/endpoint. Nine clauses in five sentences with no filler; the only mild redundancy is restating the 1-80 range that the schema already encodes.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by explaining the numeric-vs-string return distinction and giving a sample sum, so the agent knows what to expect. Pricing and the equivalent HTTP endpoint round it out; only the absence of any guidance about sibling sum/term tools keeps it from perfect.

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 the load, and it does: it defines lo and hi as inclusive bounds, states lo must not exceed hi, and confirms the 1-80 domain matching the schema minimum/maximum. It stops short of naming what the parameters are called, but the meaning is unambiguous.

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 (sum) over a specific resource (Wedderburn-Etherington numbers) with an explicit scope (indices lo through hi inclusive). This cleanly separates it from siblings like wedderburn, wedderburn_index, wedderburn_mod and wedderburn_split, which return terms, indices, residues or splits rather than a range sum.

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?

It gives concrete preconditions (lo must not pass hi, indices 1-80) and a worked example ('a(1) through a(6) is 14'), which tells the agent how to call it correctly. However, it never says when to prefer this over the sibling wedderburn term functions, so the usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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