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 does not state what forms are supported (decimals, negatives, large numbers), the output format (e.g., hyphenation, 'and'), locale, or error behavior. 'Convert number to words' alone is too thin for a tool with zero 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?

Single short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and purpose. No wasted words.

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?

No output schema, no annotations, and ambiguous dual parameters. The description fails to explain return value format, supported number types, or which parameter to supply, leaving a caller unable to use the tool confidently.

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%, but the schema descriptions themselves are unhelpful ('N to process', 'Value to process') and there are two overlapping-looking parameters (n and value) with no required fields. The description doesn't clarify which parameter to use or how they interact, leaving ambiguity despite the 100% coverage.

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 (Convert) and resource (number to words), naming both the input and output form. Sibling tools like x402-number-humanize and x402-format-ordinal-suffix exist, but the description doesn't differentiate from them.

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 vs. alternatives such as x402-number-humanize or x402-to-ordinal. There is no when/when-not or context about supported input ranges or negative/decimal handling.

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