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. It says nothing about input expectations, computation behavior, output, or whether the operation is a safe read. The agent gets no behavioral context beyond the 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 very short, but it is not usefully concise because it simply repeats the tool name twice. Every sentence should earn its place, and this phrase adds no actionable information for the agent.

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 calculation tool with one input parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no information about expected input format, result format, or relation to the many statistical siblings.

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% for the single optional 'values' parameter, so the schema already documents the input. The description adds no parameter meaning, but the high schema coverage justifies the baseline score of 3.

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 simply "Standard Error: Standard Error", which restates the tool name without a verb, resource, or scope. It does not distinguish the tool from siblings like x402-standard-error-of-mean or x402-stats, so an agent cannot tell what it 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 on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as x402-standard-error-of-mean, x402-stddev, or x402-variance. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.

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