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 discloses nothing: no accepted date format, no handling of negative years, no timezone or month-overflow behavior, no note on what is returned. A pure-arithmetic tool still needs input format disclosure to be callable reliably.

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 its brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient communication — it repeats the name twice and carries zero informational payload.

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 3-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no usable parameter descriptions, the description supplies none of the context an agent needs to invoke it correctly. Nothing about inputs, formats, or results is covered.

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 nominally 100%, but the schema text is itself tautological ('N to process', 'Date to process', 'Years to process'), so it conveys no real semantics. The description adds nothing to disambiguate the ambiguous pair 'n' and 'years' or to state the date format for 'date', leaving the parameter meaning effectively undocumented.

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 Years: Add Years' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name, giving no verb-plus-resource detail beyond what the name already conveys. It also fails to distinguish this tool from close siblings such as x402-add-days, x402-add-months, 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusion criteria, and no mention of the obvious alternatives (add-days, add-months). An agent has nothing to route on.

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