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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with "no wallet, chain, market, bank or counterparty lookup, and no money movement", which is consistent rather than contradictory. It adds genuinely useful non-schema behavior: paid-URL pricing (0.10 USDC per call on Base via x402 exact), the 10 free signed-wallet calls per rolling 30 days, the X-Wever-Wallet-Proof binding requirement, and the Ed25519 signed receipt. However, given that annotations already carry the safety profile, the remainder is largely operational boilerplate repeated across the family rather than this tool's specific behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the return content, then the sibling disambiguation, then operational details. It is dense rather than padded, but the trailing URL, contract path, and endpoint string add administrative noise that slightly dilutes the actionable core.

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, and the description compensates fully by enumerating the report contents, the verdict field, and the signed receipt. Payment, authentication, and the absence of external lookups are all covered, which is complete for a read-only, non-open-world computation tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented, making 3 the baseline. The description's parenthetical (amount, asset, counterparty, category where given, timestamp) mostly restates schema fields and adds no syntax, format, or edge-case detail beyond what the schema says — although "category where given" hints at the uncategorized path it is not spelled out as parameter guidance.

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+resource (submit one period of transactions to produce a spend-category brief) and then enumerates exactly what the output contains: totals, shares by category, top counterparties, largest payments, uncategorized count, and a fully_categorized/partly_uncategorized verdict. It also names the sibling it is not (wever_expense-close-pack), so an agent can distinguish it without opening the 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?

Gives explicit routing guidance: "Any period; the month-end close pack with receipts, refunds and exceptions is wever_expense-close-pack." That names the alternative and the condition that selects it. It stops short of covering other nearby siblings (e.g. wever_treasury-flows, wever_wallet-statement) or stating when this tool is the wrong choice, so not a full 5.

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