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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true/openWorldHint=false, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: supplied-status-only semantics with no polling, an explicit no-network/no-write/no-money-movement guarantee, the x402 pricing (0.10 USDC on Base, 10 free signed-wallet calls per rolling 30 days), and the X-Wever-Wallet-Proof binding requirement. It also discloses the signed Ed25519 receipt, which is behaviour no annotation conveys.

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 what is submitted and what comes back, then payment/auth contract details at the end where they belong. Density is high and nearly every clause carries information, though the pricing, header-binding and link boilerplate adds length that a reader must wade through before calling.

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, the description covers the return shape at a useful level: a report with a priority-ordered triage, named verdict set and an Ed25519 signed receipt. It stops short of describing the report's fields or severity detail, which would fully close the gap for such a rich nested input.

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 meaning the schema does not: that statuses are taken as reported and agents are never polled, and that the triage reasons derive from the supplied fields (deadline passed, error loop, stopped with an error, blocked on an answer, deadline at risk). Threshold parameters stall_after_minutes and deadline_warning_hours are only explained in the schema, so not a 5.

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 a list of running agents or jobs as reported') and the concrete output: a signed brief that triages in priority order with verdicts human_needed, stalled_or_unclear or all_clear. An agent can distinguish this from generic status or deadline tools 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 clear context for use: you have a snapshot of running agents with status, last activity, blockers, deadlines and errors, and want a prioritised attention verdict. It does not name an explicit alternative or exclusion (e.g. wever_agent-daily-operator-brief or wever_deadline-check), so the when-not-to-use side is left to inference.

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