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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the exact computation (useful transparency for a pure-math tool) plus a paywall signal ('5 free trial calls per signed wallet'). It does not state that the operation is side-effect-free/read-only or what happens on invalid string input.

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 core computation is front-loaded and clear, but the trailing '🆓 5 free trial calls per signed wallet' is promotional noise that does not help an agent call the tool and dilutes an otherwise tight definition.

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 trivial two-parameter arithmetic tool this is nearly sufficient — the computation and implied return value are clear even without an output schema. Gaps remain on input types/validation and the absence of any routing against the near-identical decrease-by-percent sibling.

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 schema documents neither 'value' nor 'percent'. The formula compensates by mapping 'value' to the base and 'percent' to the percentage, but it never clarifies that both are strings, nor the accepted number formats.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Increase By Percent') and spells out the exact computation (value × (1 + percent/100)), so the agent knows precisely what the tool returns. However, it does not distinguish itself from the existing sibling x402-decrease-by-percent or x402-percent-change, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of the obvious alternative (x402-decrease-by-percent) or any other percent tool. The formula implies a use case but does not state conditions or exclusions.

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