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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the payment requirement ($0.75 USDC via x402, settled only on success), which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. No contradiction exists between the description and 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 two sentences with the core purpose first, followed by a pricing note. It is concise and front-loaded, though the parenthetical pricing detail adds some clutter and could be separated more clearly.

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 description lacks details about the returned 'repair metrics' shape and any prerequisites, and there is no output schema to compensate. The core purpose and payment model are clear, but the return value is underspecified, leaving some contextual gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description maps 'scale/axis/degenerates/normals' to the relevant parameters (scale_unit, up_axis, remove_degenerates, fix_normals), giving them purpose and context beyond their individual schema descriptions. This adds meaning to the parameter set.

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 specifies that the tool repairs a mesh into the AXIS canonical frame (covering scale, axis, degenerates, and normals) and returns repair metrics. This is a specific verb+resource combination that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like axis_validate or post_process_mesh.

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 implies usage for meshes needing canonical-frame repair, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No sibling alternatives are named, and the paid aspect is not tied to usage decisions.

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