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

Adds substantial behavior beyond annotations: 'Reads only the material in the call: no network request, fetch, money movement, message, sharing, configuration change or external write', pricing at 0.10 USDC per call, wallet-proof binding, and an Ed25519 signed receipt. This clearly explains side-effect and auth/payment 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?

Purpose is front-loaded and every major sentence contributes useful operational detail. The first sentence is dense and tangled, and the payment/URL details add bulk, though they are relevant for a paid 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?

No output schema exists, yet the description explains the return: a signed report naming unattributable actions and missing fields, with verdict values. It also covers side effects, payment/auth requirements, and the sibling alternative, leaving little an agent needs missing.

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 conceptual meaning to the action design fields: actor identification, authorization, permissions held, time, enforced grants versus instructions, and grant versioning. It does not add syntax details, but it clarifies what each recorded field represents.

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 and resource: 'submit an action or audit record design', and names the exact analysis performed: recorded actions that cannot be attributed to a specific agent/authorization/permissions/time. It also distinguishes a sibling: 'Run completeness is wever_run-record-check.'

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?

Routes the agent to wever_run-record-check for a different check and lists the verdicts, which implies when this tool applies. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it versus the many other accountability siblings.

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