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 discloses the mathematical transformation and part of the return shape ('Returns direction=inflate'), but does not clarify rate format (percent vs. decimal), handling of years as a string, error behavior for missing/extra parameters, or why six string parameters exist when only three appear in the formula.

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?

Front-loads the verb and formula, then adds the sibling relationship and return hint. The 'Inflation Adjust: Inflate:' prefix is slightly redundant but the content is tight and every sentence contributes.

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 6-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core calculation and return direction but omits any guidance on the extra parameters, rate units, or error cases. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 nominally 100%, but the schema descriptions are pure tautologies ('N to process', 'Rate to process'), so the description must compensate. The formula gives real meaning to value, rate, and years, but leaves n, present, and inflation entirely unexplained, creating ambiguity about aliases and required inputs.

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 ('Inflate: project a PRESENT amount forward to a future nominal value'), gives the exact formula, and explicitly names the sibling it is the opposite of (x402-inflation-adj). An agent can distinguish it from the deflation counterpart without opening either schema.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use it ('project a PRESENT amount forward') and names the alternative sibling (the opposite x402-inflation-adj). It lacks explicit when-not or prerequisite conditions, but the usage direction is unambiguous.

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