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

The description goes well past the annotations by disclosing the tool's operational envelope: it reads only the supplied material (no page fetch, no registry or chain lookup, no counterparty contact, no payment signed or moved), which is exactly the kind of scope limit the readOnly annotation cannot express. It also states the cost model (0.10 USDC per call on Base via x402 exact, 10 signed-wallet free calls per rolling 30 days) and the X-Wever-Wallet-Proof binding requirement, which are essential pre-call facts for a paid endpoint.

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 and input options are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the report contents follow logically. Some tail material (the raw route POST /api/handover-check, contract path, and human page URL) is operational boilerplate that an agent rarely needs to act on, though it is at least grouped at the end rather than interrupting the core description.

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 describes a signed report rating each handover area as covered, partial or not covered with quotes, states day-one runnability, names gaps, and notes an Ed25519 signed receipt. Combined with the payment and proof-header details, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly on the first attempt.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does add light orientation by enumerating the field areas (credentials, runbooks, billing, domains, data_export, obligations) and by implying text/fields can be combined, but it does not explain the text-vs-fields precedence rule or the format enum's auto-detection behavior, which the schema already handles.

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 ("check a handover package before a receiver takes over") and even frames the role as "preflight round 2," so an agent knows this is a pre-takeover readiness audit rather than a document-generation tool. It does not, however, name or contrast itself with plausible siblings such as wever_succession-brief, wever_continuity-check or wever_agent-to-agent-handoff-pack, leaving boundary decisions to inference.

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?

"Before a receiver takes over" gives a clear triggering condition, and the input alternatives (text, fields, or both) tell the agent how to invoke it correctly. There are no explicit when-not conditions and no named alternative tool for adjacent needs, so the guidance is strong but not complete.

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