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 discloses nothing. It does not say whether inputs are side lengths, whether the values are validated (triangle inequality), what units are assumed, or what format the result takes.

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 length is achieved by duplicating the title rather than by saying anything; this is 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?

A 3-parameter computation tool with no annotations and no output schema needs the description to explain inputs and return value. Nothing is explained, leaving the tool effectively uncallable with confidence.

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?

Although schema description coverage is nominally 100%, the descriptions are placeholders ("A to process", "B to process", "C to process") that convey no meaning. Nothing indicates that a, b, c are triangle side lengths, their units, or their numeric constraints, and the description does not compensate.

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?

"Triangle Perimeter: Triangle Perimeter" is a pure tautology that restates the tool name twice and adds nothing. There is no verb, no statement of what is computed, and no distinction from siblings like x402-triangle-area or x402-trapezoid-perimeter.

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?

No when-to-use, no prerequisites, no alternatives named. In a catalog with hundreds of geometry siblings, the agent gets zero routing guidance.

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