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

There are no annotations, and the description discloses no behavioral traits: no mention of inputs, expected output, side effects, or error conditions. The description carries the full burden and fails to provide any behavioral context beyond the tool's name.

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 description is extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than intentional conciseness. While there is no wasted text, the single sentence is redundant and provides no useful information, so it does not earn its place.

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?

Despite having zero parameters and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot determine what inputs are needed, what the output is, or how this tool behaves. The context signals and sibling list do not compensate for the missing behavioral description.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema is fully covered by default. With no parameters, the description does not need to explain parameter semantics, making baseline 4 appropriate. However, the description's complete lack of context about what computation occurs means the score is lowered to 3, as it still does not confirm what the tool does.

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 Leg: Pythagorean Leg' is a pure tautology that restates the tool name without adding any information. It does not state a verb, resource, or scope, and provides no way to distinguish this tool from the sibling x402-pythagorean or any other geometry tool.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention the Pythagorean theorem, when to compute a leg versus a hypotenuse, or how this differs from sibling x402-pythagorean or triangle tools.

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