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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden, but it only repeats the operation name. It does not disclose whether this tool computes a new value, modifies state, expects a percentage as 10 or 0.1, or what the response contains. This is a severe transparency 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 text is extremely short, but it is not usefully concise: 'Increase By Percent' is repeated after the colon, so every word is redundant. This is under-specification rather than efficient communication.

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, no annotations, and no explanatory description, this definition is completely inadequate. It never explains how to make the tool do anything, what a successful result looks like, or how this percent operation differs from the many neighboring percent tools. An agent would be forced to guess from the name alone.

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 is empty, so schema description coverage is effectively complete and there are no parameter definitions for the description to clarify. Although the name implies inputs like a base value and a percentage, the 0-parameter schema means this dimension carries little weight here.

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 is 'Increase By Percent: Increase By Percent', which simply restates the tool name. It gives no object, no example, and no explanation of what resource or value is being increased. It also does nothing to differentiate this tool from similar siblings like x402-decrease-by-percent or x402-percentage-change.

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?

The description provides no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, and no mention of sibling tools such as x402-decrease-by-percent. An agent receives zero routing information.

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