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

Well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses the pricing model (0.10 USDC per call on Base via x402 exact with 10 free signed-wallet calls per rolling 30 days), a required auth binding (X-Wever-Wallet-Proof tied to the exact JSON arguments and tool route), and that the response carries an Ed25519 signed receipt. It also enumerates the possible report states and the extra fields attached to a live verdict, which no structured field provides.

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 purpose is front-loaded, which is good, but the second sentence is a single sprawling construction with nested parentheticals describing the live state, making it hard to parse on first read. The trailing "Contract: /api/agent-records-contract. Human page: ..." is marginal for an agent deciding how to call the tool, and the payment sentence is dense mid-description rather than set apart.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden itself and does so: it enumerates the four possible report states, the sub-fields of a live verdict, and the signed receipt wrapper. It also covers the two things an agent would otherwise get wrong, namely the one-of input rule and the paid/auth requirements, so nothing essential is missing 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 description coverage is 100%, so both url and submission_id are already documented in the input schema, including the format of submission_id. The description restates the same information ("Input submission_id, or url as a listed website or MCP endpoint") without adding format, precedence, or error behavior beyond the schema's own "Send exactly one of submission_id or url." Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Opens with a specific framing ("Agent directory: the state of a directory listing or submission") and names the concrete verb-like operation (fetch the state of a listing or submission). It is clearly distinct from wever_directory-submit, which the schema identifies as the source of submission_id, but the description itself never names a sibling tool to contrast against.

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 description implies the usage context ("Input submission_id, or url as a listed website or MCP endpoint") and scopes the source of truth ("read only from the directory listings and its review queue"), so an agent can infer this is a post-submission status lookup. It never states when to prefer this over alternatives such as wever_listing-check or wever_directory-submit, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites beyond the implicit one-of rule.

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