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

Annotations already cover readOnly/openWorld/destructive, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: paid 0.10 USDC per call on Base via x402 exact, a 10-call signed-wallet free tier per rolling 30 days, the X-Wever-Wallet-Proof binding requirement to the JSON arguments and route, and an Ed25519 signed receipt in the response. The explicit honesty boundary ('matches words, figures, dates and named items... does not interpret meaning') is exactly the kind of behavioral caveat annotations cannot express.

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?

The first sentence front-loads purpose well and the constraint list is organized, but the middle section is a dense run-on packing pricing, wallet proof, receipt, contract path and human page into a single line. The URL path, contract path and human page are useful but the whole sits at the edge of overload for a three-parameter tool.

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 simple read-only single-document checker with no output schema, everything an agent needs is present: input scope, what the report contains, the interpretation limits, cost and auth mechanics, and pointers to the contract and human page. No material gap remains.

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% and all three parameters carry descriptions, including the format enum's defaulting rule, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about label/format/statement beyond restating the payload as 'the material in the call', so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (submit) and resource (accessibility statement or conformance claim) and spells out exactly what the report assesses: standard and level claimed, claim date, evaluation method, known limitations, feedback contact, plus the specific contradiction flags (full conformance beside known limitations, claim with no method, stale claim). This distinguishes it from the many other *-evidence-check siblings without naming one.

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?

The description defines the input scope ('Reads only the material in the call: no page fetch, no account access, no merchant contact') and the pricing/auth preconditions, which is useful context. However, it never says when an agent should pick this over related siblings such as certification-evidence-check, terms-evidence-check, or privacy-evidence-check; the differentiation must be inferred from the clause list.

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