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

Goes well past the annotations: it enumerates the verdict values (gaps_found, thresholds_unverified, covered), declares the tool reads only the material in the call with no network request, money movement, message, sharing or configuration change, and discloses the paid access model (0.10 USDC per call on Base via x402, 10 free signed-wallet calls per rolling 30 days) plus the X-Wever-Wallet-Proof binding requirement. That is exactly the operational context the readOnlyHint/closed-world annotations cannot convey.

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?

It is front-loaded with the purpose and keeps every sentence on-topic, but the prose is long run-on clauses that pack verdicts, payment mechanics, header binding, receipt format and two URLs into a few dense sentences. A reader must parse mid-sentence to find the payment and authentication constraints.

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 tool with no output schema this is complete: it names the output artifact (a signed report with an Ed25519 receipt), the possible verdicts, the input inventory it expects, the cost and free-tier model, the authentication header, the endpoint and the contract page. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is left out.

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 the field-level meanings are already documented in the schema. The description adds only a compact restatement of the inventory fields (name, category, gate, amount or count the threshold fires above, max per action or period), which is useful framing but not meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 concrete verb and resource: submit an inventory of agent action classes and get back a signed report naming consequential classes with no gate or a threshold that never fires. It also distinguishes itself from the two neighboring controls it names (wever_approval-chain-check for approver bands, wever_spending-policy-check for spend policy), so an agent can tell the three apart.

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 makes clear when this tool is the right one (you have an inventory of action classes and want to know which gates/thresholds are missing or unverifiable) and points at the sibling controls that own approver-band and spending-policy questions. It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use statement or an ordered decision rule between the three tools.

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