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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but only discloses a payment/trial detail ('5 free trial calls per signed wallet'). It says nothing about error handling, whether weights must be non-negative, whether lists must match in length, or what the response looks like.

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 short but wasteful: 'Mean of weighted' is meaningless filler, and the free-trial sentence is promotional rather than functional. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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 parameterized computation tool with 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies neither input format nor result semantics. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool on the basis of the definition provided.

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 0% and both parameters are bare strings, yet the description gives no indication of expected format (comma-separated list, JSON array, space-delimited?) for 'values' or 'weights'. The agent has no way to construct a valid call from the description or the schema.

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 text 'Weighted Mean: Mean of weighted' essentially restates the tool name without defining the operation, its inputs, or its output. An agent can infer it computes a weighted mean, but nothing distinguishes it from siblings like x402-weighted-average, x402-mean-of, or x402-trimmed-mean.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as x402-weighted-average or x402-harmonic-mean. The only added sentence concerns free trial calls, which is billing information rather than usage guidance.

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