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 it discloses nothing: no formula, no unit expectations, no whether speed/frequency are required (they are not), no error behavior. The agent has no basis for predicting the result.

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?

"Wavelength: Wavelength" is degenerate rather than concise — there is no structure or front-loaded information because there is no information at all. This is under-specification, matching the LOW calibration where the one-word description "Process" scored 2.

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 physics-style computation whose formula, units, and input requirements are entirely undocumented, the definition is completely inadequate for correct invocation.

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%, which sets the baseline at 3 per the rubric, even though the schema text itself ("Speed to process", "Frequency to process") is nearly meaningless and the description adds nothing. The description neither clarifies units nor the relationship between the two inputs.

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 tautology "Wavelength: Wavelength" — it restates the tool name without a verb, resource, or any indication that this computes wavelength (e.g. from speed and frequency). An agent cannot tell what operation is performed or how it differs from siblings like x402-frequency, x402-wave-speed, or x402-speed-convert.

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, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing information of any kind. The crowded sibling namespace (x402-wave-speed, x402-frequency, x402-speed, x402-speed-convert) makes the absence of differentiation actively harmful.

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