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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: no input types, no constraints (e.g. n must be an integer >= 3), no output form, no error behavior. It neither confirms nor denies anything about how the tool behaves.

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 short, but the single clause is pure duplication of the title; no sentence earns its place because the description supplies zero information. Brevity here reflects under-specification, not conciseness.

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 3-parameter computation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum define the formula's inputs. It defines nothing, leaving the agent unable to infer valid parameter values or expected results.

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 descriptions are contentless placeholders ('N to process', 'Side to process', 'Sides to process') that convey no meaning. Critically, the description never disambiguates the overlapping 'side' vs 'sides' parameters, which is the one thing an agent must know to call this correctly. The coverage number overstates real semantic documentation.

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 a verbatim restatement of the tool name ('Regular Polygon Perimeter: Regular Polygon Perimeter'), which is the textbook tautology case. It adds no verb, scope, or differentiator against siblings like x402-regular-polygon-area or x402-regular-polygon-interior.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to the many adjacent sibling tools (regular-polygon-area, regular-polygon-exterior, regular-polygon-interior). The agent is given nothing to disambiguate.

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