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

Beyond annotations it discloses substantial behavior: the call reads only the supplied material with no network request, money movement or external write; it is paid at 0.10 USDC per call on Base via x402 with ten signed-wallet free calls per rolling 30 days; the X-Wever-Wallet-Proof must bind the exact JSON arguments and route; and the return is a report with an Ed25519 signed receipt.

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 is front-loaded and the routing and pricing sentences are compact, but the middle run-on enumeration of report findings ('unsecured value and no remedy for default, then unvalued exposures, nothing owed on a walk-away, no termination right, no dispute path, no late fee...') is dense and hard to parse in one pass. The verdict list is useful; the exposure list 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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return burden, and it does: it states the three verdict values and summarizes what the signed report sets against what, plus cost, auth binding and receipt type. Minor gaps remain, such as the report's shape and whether unvalued exposures ever block a verdict.

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?

With 60% schema coverage and nested objects, the description supplies real meaning: exposures carry value, whether handed over before payment and whether recoverable; payments carry amount and timing (upfront, milestone, delivery, after); recovery covers deposit, escrow, termination for default with cure period, walk-away fee, late fee, dispute path and ownership until paid. It leaves label and the agreement name/price/counterparty fields unaddressed.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('submit one proposed agreement' for the Agent Negotiation risk check) and enumerates exactly what the submission contains: exposures, payments and recovery terms. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming wever_exposure-cap-check, wever_liability-terms-check and wever_escrow-quote as the homes for adjacent questions.

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 routes three related needs away explicitly (spend cap design, liability for agent error, escrow terms) and implies use for a single proposed agreement's overall risk. It gives no explicit when-not-to-use against close siblings such as wever_negotiation-terms-check or wever_negotiation-settlement-check, so the boundary is only partly drawn.

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