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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure — and it provides nothing beyond the word 'sort'. Critically, with an empty input schema, the description never explains how the numbers to be sorted are supplied, what the return format is, whether sorting is ascending/descending, or whether the operation is stable.

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?

At five words, this is under-specification rather than conciseness. The description repeats the name in the body ('Sort Numbers: Sort numbers.'), wasting its only sentence on a tautology instead of earning its place with usable 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?

Against a sibling list teeming with overlapping sorting tools, no annotations, no output schema, and an empty input schema, this description is wholly inadequate. An agent cannot determine how to invoke the tool, what input it consumes, what output it produces, or which sibling it should choose instead.

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 schema has zero parameters, so there is no parameter documentation burden in the schema itself. However, the tool is named 'sort numbers' yet accepts no parameters, which creates an acute explanatory gap: the description should clarify where the numbers come from and how they are passed. Instead it remains silent, leaving the tool effectively uncallable from the agent's perspective.

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 'Sort Numbers: Sort numbers.' is a verbatim restatement of the tool name — a tautology. It confirms the tool sorts numbers but adds zero information beyond what the name already conveys, and it does nothing to distinguish this tool from its many sorting siblings (bubble-sort, quick-sort, merge-sort, sort-lines, sort-strings, sorted-array, etc.).

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 whatsoever on when to use this tool versus the roughly ten alternative sorting tools among its siblings. An agent cannot determine whether this is the generic sorter, whether it is ascending or descending, or why it would be preferred over x402-quick-sort or x402-sort-strings.

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