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 delivers nothing: no indication of whether the sort is ascending or descending, whether it mutates input or returns a new ordering, what algorithm-specific behavior (e.g. O(n^2), comparison count) matters, or how output is shaped.

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 brevity is a byproduct of under-specification rather than efficiency; both halves of the sentence are redundant with each other and with the tool name, so no sentence earns 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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and a completely empty description, an agent cannot determine what the tool returns or how it differs from dozens of sibling sort utilities. Nothing needed to call it correctly is present.

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?

There is a single parameter (values, described as "Values to process") and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the input at baseline level. The description adds no elaboration on expected input format (delimited string? numeric list?), and with 0 required parameters the baseline of 3 applies.

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 literal string "Selection Sort: Selection Sort", which merely repeats the tool name in both halves. It names no verb, no resource, no input, and no output, so an agent learns nothing beyond what the slug already encodes.

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 alternatives, and no exclusions. This is especially damaging here because the sibling list contains many near-identical sorting tools (x402-bubble-sort, x402-merge-sort, x402-quick-sort, x402-insertion-sort, x402-heap-sort, x402-counting-sort) with no stated basis for choosing among them.

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