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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, and it discloses nothing. It does not state whether the operation is pure, how dates are formatted, how timezones are handled, what the result looks like, or how month-end edge cases (e.g., Jan 31) are resolved.

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 this is under-specification, not conciseness. A four-word tautology earns no credit for efficiency because it contains zero information beyond the tool name; it is the minimum possible utterance rather than a deliberately trimmed 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?

An agent has no way to call this tool correctly: the schema expose no parameters, the description explains no inputs or outputs, and there is no output schema or annotations to compensate. This is completely inadequate — the agent cannot know what to pass, what it will receive, or how this differs from the many adjacent date-manipulation tools.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so per the rubric the baseline is 4 — there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. However, an empty schema for a tool named 'add-months' is itself suspicious, and the description does nothing to explain how the operation receives its date and month inputs.

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 'Add Months: Add Months' is a pure tautology that restates the tool name with no added meaning. It fails to specify the verb+resource operation, what input is expected, what output is produced, or how it differs from siblings like x402-add-days, x402-add-years, and x402-add-business-days.

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?

No usage guidance is provided whatsoever. The description gives no indication of when to prefer this tool over closely related siblings (x402-add-days, x402-add-business-days, x402-date-math) and offers no exclusions or prerequisites.

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