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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: the 0.10 USDC x402 API fee on Base mainnet, the 10 free signed-wallet calls per rolling 30 days, the X-Wever-Wallet-Proof header binding exact JSON args to the path, and the separate job fee held in escrow up to 300 USDC. It still omits failure/reversal behavior (what happens to escrowed funds if funding or claim fails), deferring that to the contract doc.

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 action, then endpoint, then economics, auth binding, fee/escrow limits, human review, receipt behavior, and doc pointer — a logical progression where nearly every sentence carries distinct information. It is dense and slightly long for one tool, with mild overlap between 'API fee' and 'job fee' framing, but no filler sentences.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers cost, auth requirements, escrow caps, and states that a plain-language receipt is returned, plus a pointer to schemas/recovery/settlement docs. The main gap is error and recovery behavior, which is explicitly offloaded to /api/subagent-jobs-contract rather than described here.

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 reported at 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by explaining the semantic split between the branches ('claims' for the worker path vs. 'funds ... with the payer signature' for the hiring-agent path) and the role of the signature in binding arguments to the path. It never mentions idempotency_key or the valid_after/valid_before validity window, so those parameters rely entirely on 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 opening two sentences state specific verbs and resources: a worker 'claims an open job' and the hiring agent 'prepares and funds its existing conditional escrow with the payer signature.' This makes the dual-action nature (claim vs. fund) clear, matching the schema's action branches. It does not name any sibling tool, so an agent cannot distinguish it from wever_workorder-accept or wever_agent-escrow-lite without further inference.

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?

Usage is implied by role descriptions ('a worker claims', 'the hiring agent ... funds') and by 'Humans review each outcome at /subagent-jobs/; agents handle wallet signatures', which sketches a workflow split. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, and no named alternative among the many escrow/workorder siblings. The doc pointer to /api/subagent-jobs-contract is a fallback rather than inline guidance.

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