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 discloses only the arithmetic relationship; it never states that the operation is a side-effect-free deterministic computation, nor does it explain the input/output format (parameters are typed as strings, which is unexplained).

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?

A single compact line with the key fact front-loaded and no filler. It is lean rather than padded, though it leans toward under-specification rather than optimal brevity.

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 two-parameter arithmetic tool with no annotations and no output schema, the formula gives a workable minimum. However, input units, expected numeric format (parameters are strings), and return shape are all unspecified, leaving real gaps 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 coverage is 100%, but the schema descriptions are near-useless ('Force to process', 'Distance to process'). The formula W=Fd adds real meaning by establishing that the two inputs are multiplicands and what the result represents, going beyond the schema text.

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?

Names the operation ('Work calculation') and supplies the governing formula W=Fd, which pins down that this computes mechanical work from force and distance. That distinguishes it from similar siblings such as x402-force, x402-kinetic-energy, or x402-potential-energy, though it never explicitly routes the agent away from them.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of unit expectations despite the many unit-related siblings (x402-force-unit, x402-energy). The agent must infer all usage context.

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