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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. 'Compute' suggests a pure, stateless operation, but the description does not disclose the return format, determinism, input-validation behavior, or any edge-case behavior (e.g. no legal moves or invalid boards). It provides minimal but non-contradictory behavioral context.

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 a single, compact sentence with no filler. The key verb, resource, and input condition are all present and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 game-state solver, an agent likely needs to know how the board string is encoded (e.g. JSON array, comma-separated grid), what 'state' means as a separate parameter, and what a 'move' is returned as (e.g. direction string, board transform). None of this is provided, and there is no output schema to fill the gap.

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 100%, but those schema descriptions ('Board to process', 'State to process')are generic, and the description adds no format, serialization, or relationship between 'board' and 'state'. Per the baseline rule for high schema coverage, 3 is appropriate, but the tool is not readily invocable without more parameter detail.

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 uses a specific verb 'compute' and names a concrete resource: the next 2048 game move, given a board state. It clearly identifies itself as the 2048-specific move solver, distinguishing it from sibling game-move tools like x402-chess-move or x402-tictactoe-move.

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: call it when you have a 2048 board state and need the next move. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tools cover alternative games, so an agent must infer the appropriate selection from the name and context.

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