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 delivers nothing: no mention of output format, whether 'value' is a number or array, units, ranges, or deterministic behavior. A single tautological phrase leaves all behavioral questions unanswered.

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 this is under-specification rather than conciseness: the single redundant phrase carries no information and is not front-loaded with any actionable content. Same failure mode as the LOW calibration example.

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 2-parameter math/wave tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate — an agent cannot know the input types, units, expected output shape, or intended use. Nothing an agent needs 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so per the baseline rule this scores 3. The description adds zero meaning to the parameters 'value'/'period' ('Value to process', 'Period to process'), but the schema nominally documents them, holding this to the baseline rather than lower.

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 'Square Wave: Square Wave' merely restates the tool name and title with no verb, no resource detail, and no differentiation from the many other waveform/period siblings (triangle-wave, sawtooth-wave, period). An agent learns nothing about what the tool actually computes or returns.

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, what it produces, or how it relates to alternatives like x402-triangle-wave, x402-sawtooth-wave, or x402-period. The agent has no basis for selection.

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