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

No annotations are supplied, but the operation is a pure deterministic calculation, so the behavioral surface is small. The description adds payment/access context ('5 free trial calls per signed wallet') that structured fields do not convey, but it omits the output format and unit conventions of the result.

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?

Two compact sentences with the core definition front-loaded; nothing is padded. The trial-call note is appended efficiently, though the emoji adds noise to machine-read text.

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 one-parameter calculator with no output schema, the definition is close to sufficient, but the missing unit conventions on input and output leave a real gap for an agent computing a physical quantity.

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 carries full burden for the single 'frequency' parameter. It says only 'Provide frequency value' — it never states units (Hz, kHz), whether the value may be a decimal or scientific-notation string, or that the parameter is optional-but-required-in-practice. Units are the crux of a physics calculation and are left ambiguous.

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 and resource ('Calculate the period of a wave') and even gives the formula ('the reciprocal of frequency'), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not differentiate from near siblings such as x402-frequency (the inverse operation) or x402-wave-speed, which share the same domain.

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?

'Provide frequency value' tells the agent what input is required, implying when the tool applies. There is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over x402-frequency or other wave tools, and no mention of constraints or exclusions.

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