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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses only a pricing detail ("5 free trial calls per signed wallet"), which does hint at an auth/payment requirement, but says nothing about return format, supported year ranges, or calendar system — significant gaps for a computational tool with no annotation coverage.

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?

Two short clauses, front-loaded with the core purpose, with no filler sentences. The trailing promo/emoji line is somewhat noisy but does not obscure meaning.

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?

With no output schema and two undocumented parameters, the description leaves an agent guessing on year format, the role of `input`, and which Easter tradition is used. For a tool whose entire value is a single computed date, these omissions are material.

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 neither parameter is documented. The phrase "for a year" loosely maps to the `year` parameter, but no format is given (4-digit? string?), and the second parameter `input` is entirely unexplained in both schema and description. Partial compensation only.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: "Compute the Easter date for a year". An agent can immediately tell this is a date-computation tool, though the description does not distinguish it from nearby calendar/holiday siblings (e.g. x402-chinese-new-year, x402-julian-day) beyond the word Easter.

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 guidance on when to use this instead of related date tools, nor any prerequisite context. Critically, it never says whether the result is Gregorian/Western or Orthodox/Julian Easter, which is the main decision an agent would need to make before calling.

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