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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It only restates the concept of a weighted median and gives no information about inputs, output format, edge cases, or how weights are handled. There is no meaningful behavioral disclosure.

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 extremely short but this is under-specification rather than genuine conciseness. The only sentence adds almost no information beyond the tool name and makes it harder for an agent to use the tool safely.

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 mathematical tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description is severely incomplete. It does not state what input is expected, how weights are supplied, what the return value is, or whether the tool supports arrays or lists. An agent cannot correctly select or invoke this tool based on this description.

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 input schema has zero properties, so there are no parameter semantics to document. Per the calibration baseline for 0-param tools, the description need not add parameter detail, though it could have explained how the calculation is invoked. A 4 reflects the absence of parameters rather than a strength of the description.

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 'Weighted Median: Median of weighted.' merely restates the tool name without a verb or resource. It does not communicate what the tool is supposed to do or how it differs from sibling tools like x402-weighted-mean or x402-median. This is effectively a tautology.

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 guidance is provided about when to select this tool over alternatives such as x402-median, x402-weighted-average, or x402-weighted-mean. The description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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