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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the entire burden of behavioral disclosure, and it discloses nothing — not whether it computes, stores, or mutates anything, nor what inputs mean. Nothing beyond the name is communicated.

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?

Extremely short, but the brevity is under-specification rather than conciseness — the single 'sentence' is a redundant restatement of the name and contributes zero information.

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?

Two vaguely defined parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description supplies none of the missing context (input format, whether values are numbers or strings, what the result means). Completely inadequate for the tool.

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 100%, so the schema nominally documents both parameters ('Total to process', 'Value to process'), which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds no meaning whatsoever on top of that, but the rule caps the penalty at the schema-driven baseline.

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 the tool name repeated twice ('Progress Percent: Progress Percent') with no verb, resource, or scope. It is a pure tautology that tells an agent nothing about what the tool computes or returns.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of any of the hundreds of sibling tools (e.g. x402-percent-of, x402-format-percent) that could be confused with it. The agent has no basis for selecting this tool over alternatives.

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