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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers almost nothing. The mention of a 'signed wallet' hints at an x402 payment/auth requirement, but there is no disclosure of output precision, rounding, handling of zero denominators, error behavior, or whether inputs are coerced from strings to numbers.

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 definition is short and the purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, which is good. The trailing free-trial/pricing emoji line is marketing noise that does not help an agent call the tool correctly and dilutes the signal.

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?

With four undocumented string parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should do substantially more work than it does. It gives a rough input mapping but omits return shape, edge-case behavior, and any routing guidance against the near-identical odds-ratio 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 description must compensate. It does map meaningfully onto the parameters by naming exposed/unexposed cases and totals, which an agent can align to exposedCases/exposedTotal/unexposedCases/unexposedTotal. It adds no format guidance though, and the schema declares all four as strings with no indication of whether numeric text, decimals, or validation is expected.

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 names a specific statistical operation ('Computes relative risk') and enumerates the inputs it consumes (exposed and unexposed case counts and totals), so the agent knows exactly what it produces. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the closely related sibling x402-odds-ratio, 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 statement of when to use this tool versus the odds-ratio or other epidemiology/statistics siblings, and no prerequisites are given. The only contextual note is a pricing/billing remark ('5 free trial calls per signed wallet'), which tells the agent nothing about appropriate invocation conditions.

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