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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false, but the description goes well beyond them: no network request, fetch, money movement, message, sharing, or external write; a signature binding requirement (X-Wever-Wallet-Proof tied to the exact JSON arguments and route); pricing at 0.10 USDC per call on Base via x402 exact with ten free signed-wallet calls per rolling 30 days; and an Ed25519 signed receipt. These are exactly the operational facts annotations cannot carry.

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 input material are front-loaded, and every clause is substantive — the verdict names and payment terms earn their space. However, the second sentence is a long run-on with nested parentheses enumerating report categories, which would read faster as a short list.

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-value burden and does: it names the four verdicts (recoveries_unrecorded, record_gaps, records_unverified, recoveries_recorded) and the report-plus-signed-receipt shape. For a paid, signed, three-parameter tool it supplies everything an agent needs to call it correctly, including the contract and human-page URLs for deeper detail.

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, but the description adds real meaning: it defines the fields a complete recovery record needs and identifies the core (what failed, what was done, what was lost) that a recovery cannot be reconstructed without. It also explains the scoring rules — missing core fields, missing 'what changed afterward', records written more than a day after the interruption, and unmatched observed interruptions.

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 names a specific verb and resource (submit a system's recovery records plus optionally observed interruptions) and immediately scopes what those records contain. It also distinguishes itself from three named siblings (wever_limit-evidence-check, wever_purchase-record-check, wever_incident-evidence-check), so an agent can route 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?

It states explicitly what material goes in the call (recorded recoveries and interruptions seen in alerts, error logs, or a tracker) and routes three adjacent concerns to named alternatives. The only gap is that it never frames a 'do not use this when…' case, and the 1000-item cap on each array is left entirely to the schema.

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