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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it discloses nothing: not the formula applied, whether inputs are legs or a leg-and-hypotenuse, the return value, or any error behavior for non-numeric strings.

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?

It is brief, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness — a two-word restatement of the title earns no informational value.

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, meaningless parameter text, and an empty description leave the agent with nothing beyond the bare name to decide or invoke correctly.

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 nominally 100%, but the parameter descriptions are vacuous placeholders ("A to process", "B to process") that convey no meaning. For a Pythagorean tool it is critical to know whether a/b are the legs or whether one is the hypotenuse, and neither schema nor description answers this.

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 "Pythagorean: Pythagorean" merely restates the tool name with no verb, no resource, and no statement of what is computed. It does not distinguish this tool from the sibling x402-pythagorean-leg, which is the obvious adjacent capability.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus x402-pythagorean-leg or the many other geometry siblings. No inputs, context, or exclusions are described.

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