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

Beyond the annotations it discloses genuinely useful operational facts: the call is paid on Base with a 402 challenge body to read, each request requires a signed wallet ownership proof, the adapter supplies no server credentials, and dispute coverage is explicitly unavailable. It does not contradict the destructiveHint/readOnlyHint pair, though 'compute a score' reads milder than destructive=true and that tension is never explained.

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 core sentence is duplicated almost verbatim under 'Operating boundary:', and generic boilerplate ('grants no authority', 'signed records attest only to the stated evidence', 'see /api/trust-contract') dilutes the payload. Pricing is front-loaded ahead of what the tool actually does.

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 three nested, fully required parameters and no output schema, the definition should say what a scorecard returns (range, disclosed-input fields, behavior when dispute coverage is absent) and it only says 'bounded' and 'disclosing all inputs'. The auth and payment prerequisites are covered, but the result contract is not.

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%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, and it only gestures at two of the three inputs ('completed work', 'payment receipts'). It says nothing about the mode const, the discriminated wallet_free_call vs settled_payment shapes, hex/atomic-amount formats, or the maxItems 10 / maxItems 5 caps, leaving every constraint to inference from the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: compute a bounded trust score from verified completed work, Base payment receipts and Wever escrow refunds. That is enough to know what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from the many adjacent Wever tools (receipt-passport, payment-authority-inspector, dispute-*), so an agent cannot route between them from this text alone.

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 explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use statement and no named alternative among the ~55 siblings. The only quasi-guidance is commercial (0.10 USDC per call, 10 free signed-wallet calls per rolling 30 days) and a division of labor sentence ('agents compare the disclosed inputs; humans review the evidence'), which implies audience but not selection criteria.

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