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

Beyond the supplied annotations (readOnly, closed-world, non-destructive), the description discloses that it reads only the material in the call with no network request, fetch, money movement, message, sharing, configuration change or external write, which directly corroborates and expands the safety profile. It also adds cost and rate-limit context (0.10 USDC per call on Base via x402 exact, 10 signed-wallet free calls per rolling 30 days), the X-Wever-Wallet-Proof binding requirement, the POST route, and the Ed25519 signed receipt in the return, which is exactly the auth/cost/limit context annotations cannot carry.

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 operational content (cost, auth binding, route, verdicts, sibling routing) is all worth keeping, but it is packed into a couple of very long sentences with the input specification and the report-finding list interleaved. There are no delimiters or ordering cues, so an agent must parse a dense block to extract the call contract. Trimming or splitting would improve front-loading without losing information.

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 nested-object, no-output-schema tool, the definition covers what to supply, what the analysis looks for, and what comes back (named verdicts divergence_undetected, fidelity_gaps, fidelity_unverified, executes_as_approved, plus a signed report with receipt). The remaining gap is that it does not say how the four verdicts are prioritized or what report structure to expect, which matters slightly more given there is no output schema.

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?

With 50% schema description coverage, the description does meaningful work: it explains that record content means the exact call, its digest, a summary or a reference, that location and mutability matter, and that each stage must state what it passes and whether compaction or rewrite can touch it. This gives an agent the intent behind record, stages and executor rather than just field names. It stops short of explaining the distinctions between enum values such as field_compare versus digest_match, so it is good but not exhaustive.

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 names a specific action (submit an approval-and-execution design) and enumerates precisely what the design must cover: what the approval record holds, where it lives, each stage that carries the call, and what the executor runs. It also states what the report flags (summaries kept as approvals, reconstructed calls, undetected divergence points), which is a clear purpose statement. It loses a point because the core purpose is buried in a long run-on sentence rather than stated up front.

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?

It explicitly names two sibling alternatives and the condition that separates them: the stored form after a long pause is wever_approval-durability-check, and one executed call against its approval is wever_approval-replay-check. That is real when-to-use routing. There is no explicit when-not guidance or prerequisite statement beyond the implied 'call this when you have a full approval-to-execution design.'

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