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: not the formula used, sign conventions for source/observer direction, unit expectations, or return format. For a physics-computation tool this is a complete gap.

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?

It is short, but brevity here is under-specification rather than conciseness; the single fragment conveys no actionable content and is not front-loaded with anything useful.

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?

A three-parameter physics tool with no annotations and no output schema needs the description to explain the Doppler relationship and expected inputs, and it explains nothing. An agent cannot determine how to invoke this correctly.

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%, which sets the baseline at 3, so the schema nominally documents all three parameters. However those descriptions are placeholders ("WaveSpeed to process"), and the description adds no unit, sign, or physical-role meaning beyond them.

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?

"Doppler Frequency: Frequency of doppler" is essentially a restatement of the tool name with no additional specificity. It does not distinguish this from siblings like x402-frequency, x402-wave-speed, or x402-wavelength, nor does it say which Doppler quantity is computed (observed frequency, shift, etc.).

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the many wave/frequency siblings. The agent is left to infer everything about applicability.

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