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

Beyond the readOnly/destructive annotations, it discloses the safety envelope in concrete terms ('Supplied schemas are read, never compiled', 'no network request, fetch, money movement, message, sharing, configuration change or external write'), the payment mechanics (0.10 USDC on Base via x402 exact, 10 signed-wallet free calls per rolling 30 days), the required X-Wever-Wallet-Proof binding to the exact JSON arguments and route, and the Ed25519 signed receipt in the response. These are operational facts an agent cannot get from the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with what is submitted and what the report returns, then safety, then payment and auth. Dense but nearly every clause carries information; the contract path and human page URL are mild filler but justify placement. No sentence restates the title.

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 paid, read-only evaluation tool with no output schema, the description covers inputs, verdict values (not_decidable / decidable_with_gaps / decidable), safety, price, auth binding and the signed receipt. Remaining gaps are failure behaviour (what happens with a malformed listing) and whether a paid call is charged on a rejected listing, which an agent would want before spending.

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 only 50%, but the description compensates by naming every listing field the tool consumes (name, description, use_when, input_schema, output_schema, price, example input and output), which is exactly the semantics an agent needs to construct the payload. The top-level 'label' parameter is left to its own schema description, keeping this just short of a 5.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('submit one tool or service listing') and enumerates the exact fields the listing must carry. It then defines the verdict semantics (use-when present, input schema complete, output schema present, price stated, working example) and explicitly names the sibling it is not: 'Discovery declarations are wever_bazaar-declaration-check.' An agent can distinguish it from the many nearby check tools without opening the schema.

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 implied use case is clear (you have a catalogue/MCP tool listing you want judged for agent-callability), and one alternative is explicitly routed away ('Discovery declarations are wever_bazaar-declaration-check'). It does not exclude other near siblings such as wever_listing-check or wever_directory-listing-check, so the agent must infer which check applies to which artefact type.

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