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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (idempotent, destructive, open-world), so the bar is lower, and the description adds real value beyond them: private statement retention, that only its digest hits the rail, operator-driven resolution, per-dispute (300 USDC) and daily (350 USDC) boutique limits, and the required X-Wever-Agent-Key header. It stops short of describing the post-submission flow.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences with purpose front-loaded, followed by behavior/limits and then auth. Dense but each clause carries information; no preamble or restatement of the name.

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 supplies the key operational facts an agent needs — auth requirement, cost limits, retention model, and delegation target. The remaining gap is parameter-level detail, mitigated only partly by the schema patterns and enum.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, but it only partly does: it explains that the 'statement' is retained and its digest is transmitted. The roles of intent_id, reason_code, and idempotency_key are left entirely to the bare schema (patterns/enum only).

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 ('Open a dispute') and scopes it to 'your funded purchase', and names the underlying route wever_dispute-open, which separates it from the sibling wever_workorder-dispute. Clear purpose, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with calling wever_dispute-open directly.

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?

Implies usage ('for your funded purchase', 'existing operator resolution ... apply') and shows the relationship to wever_dispute-open, but never states when to prefer this facade over the underlying dispute tool or the workorder-dispute sibling. Guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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