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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false; the description reinforces rather than contradicts them by spelling out exactly what is not done (no network request, fetch, money movement, message, sharing, configuration change or external write). It also discloses what annotations cannot: the 0.10 USDC x402 charge on Base, 10 signed-wallet free calls per rolling 30 days, the required X-Wever-Wallet-Proof binding to the exact JSON arguments and route, and an Ed25519 signed receipt in the response.

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?

Purpose and inputs are front-loaded in the opening sentence, then siblings, verdicts, cost, auth binding and contract links follow in a logical order. It is dense but nearly every clause carries information; the only sprawl is the long negative-enumeration of excluded side effects and the trailing contact/URL block, which could be tightened.

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 high-complexity, deeply nested tool with no output schema, the description supplies the verdict vocabulary, the content of the report (which surfaces are missing/stale/contradictory and which are single points of invisibility), and the receipt type. What is missing is any sense of report field layout or how many gaps trigger which verdict, so an agent cannot fully anticipate the return payload.

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 coverage is 67%, and the description compensates by walking the nested structure in prose: the offer's price, terms and last change, and per surface whether it lists the offer, the price and terms it shows, when it last took the offer, how changes reach it, and which agents find the seller only there. It even enumerates the surface kinds that the kind enum allows. It says nothing about the optional `label` parameter or value limits, which keeps it below 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?

States a specific verb and resource: submit a seller's agent-discovery setup and receive a signed report naming surfaces where the offer is missing, stale, or contradictory. It also carves itself away from the two nearest siblings by naming them (wever_listing-check for one listing's quality, wever_router-disclosure-check for router seller choice), so an agent can pick correctly without opening any 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?

Explicitly names the alternatives and the condition that selects them, and enumerates the four possible verdicts so the agent knows what outcome to expect. It stops short of saying when NOT to use it (e.g. single-surface cases, non-seller-side audits), but the routing guidance is unusually concrete for this tool family.

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