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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It is a pure calculation, but the description does not disclose the formula used (e.g., whether it is V = (h/3)(A1+A2+√(A1·A2)) or the simpler V = (πh/3)(r1²+r1r2+r2²)), the unit handling, or the output format. For a numeric tool with zero annotations, this is a significant disclosure 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple calculator, though it is arguably too terse given the missing parameter and behavioral details.

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 geometry calculator with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description should at least specify the formula and the ordering of parameters. Instead it repeats the title, leaving the agent to infer everything from uninformative schema descriptions. The definition is not complete enough to ensure correct invocation.

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 100%, so the schema technically documents the three parameters, but its descriptions are placeholder text ('Height to process', 'Radius1 to process') that add no real meaning. The tool definition description adds nothing – it doesn't even clarify which dimensions the radii correspond to (e.g., bottom vs top) or whether they are strings for numeric input. Baseline 3 would be appropriate only if schema descriptions were meaningful; here they are not.

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-resource pair: computing the volume of a frustum. The name and description align, and the intent is unambiguous. It doesn't differentiate from the large family of geometry siblings (e.g., x402-cone-frustum-volume), but the purpose is clear.

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 guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as x402-cone-frustum-volume or x402-tube-volume, nor any prerequisite context. The description gives no sense of the input expectations or the use case.

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