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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description still adds substantial behavior: the POST route, the 0.10 USDC x402 payment on Base, the 10 free signed-wallet calls per rolling 30 days, the requirement to bind X-Wever-Wallet-Proof to the exact JSON arguments, and an Ed25519-signed receipt on the report. The 'draft only, nothing signed or activated' statement is fully consistent with the read-only annotation, so there is no contradiction.

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 description is long but dense and front-loaded: purpose first, then inputs, then return contents, then the draft-only boundary, then payment mechanics. Every sentence carries operational weight, with the only marginal material being the trailing contract and human-page URLs.

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 17-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description does the heavy lifting: it enumerates the return payload (mapped limits, remaining fields, schema check, plain summary) and discloses payment and authentication prerequisites. A few secondary parameters remain unexplained, keeping it short of fully complete.

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 53% across 17 parameters, and the description compensates by grouping inputs into required core (assets, per_transaction_cap_usdc, daily_cap_usdc, expires_at), treasury-specific (destination_allowlist), and optional (venues, order types, leverage, approval details). It also signals the profile-dependent meaning of daily_cap_usdc and per_transaction_cap_usdc via the trading-versus-treasury framing, though some parameters such as principal_wallet, principal_account_id and dual_approval are left to the schema.

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 artifact: turn limits into a draft trading-agent mandate in the Wever permission-slip format. It clearly separates this from the issuing/activation path by stating it is 'marked as a draft for human approval' and 'nothing is signed, issued or activated', which implicitly distinguishes it from siblings like wever_mandate-issue or wever_ap2-mandate-gateway, though it never names them.

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 clearly frames the use case (drafting a mandate for human approval) and the negative case (not issuing, not activating, no money moves), and it states which inputs apply to trading versus treasury agents. What is missing is an explicit pointer to the sibling to call next, e.g. wever_mandate-issue after approval, so the agent must infer the workflow.

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