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

With annotations already flagging destructive/openWorld/non-idempotent, the description still adds real value: per-call pricing (0.10 USDC on Base), 10 free signed-wallet calls per rolling 30 days, the 402-body x402 terms, wallet-scoped durable records, and required existing credentials. It never explains what the destructiveHint actually destroys (existing SLA record on re-record?), and the idempotency_key requirement sits oddly against idempotentHint=false without clarification.

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?

Reasonably compact but front-loads pricing and x402 boilerplate ahead of the actual purpose, and the closing credentials/no-authority disclaimers partially repeat the operating-boundary sentence. The three modes, which are the primary decision the agent must make, are scattered rather than presented as structure.

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 three-way oneOf union with 10 params, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema demands far more than is given. The description does not map inputs to modes, does not describe the returned evaluation result beyond 'completed and overdue commitments', and defers all schema detail to an external /api/operations-contract the agent may not be able to fetch.

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 0% across 10 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and does not meet it. It hints at concepts ('deadlines', 'retained completed-work', 'callback observations') but never explains mode-conditional requireds, sla_id format, deadline_at units, retry_limit behavior, or the meaning of the usage enum ('synthetic' vs 'operational'), which is the single most consequential unexplained field.

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 core sentence 'Record wallet-scoped SLA terms and evaluate deadlines against retained completed-work or callback observations' gives a concrete verb+resource+data source, and 'Read the result to identify completed and overdue commitments' covers the third mode. It never names or contrasts with plausible siblings such as wever_agent-work-order-rail, wever_agent-callback-health-monitor, or wever_agent-escrow-lite, so differentiation is left to the agent.

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?

The 'Operating boundary' paragraph describes an intended workflow (save terms and deadlines, then evaluate, then read the result), which implies when to call. But there are no exclusions and no guidance on choosing this rail over the many sibling rails, nor on when to supply a callback_url versus a callback_probe_id versus null.

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