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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses concrete behavioral traits: per-call cost, a free tier, where to read x402 terms ('the backend 402 body'), that no execution/quote/payment occurs, and that payment access records are durable. This is meaningful disclosure. It stops short of a 5 because much of the text restates the same 'no authority' point repeatedly rather than adding new traits.

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 description opens with pricing rather than purpose, then repeats the 'grants no authority / bounded computation' claim across three separate sentences. Significant redundancy and back-loaded legal boilerplate reduce signal density.

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 four required parameters including a nested object and no output schema, the description omits both parameter semantics and the shape of the prepared workflow it returns. Payment and boundary context is covered, but the operational essentials an agent needs to call and interpret the tool are 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it explains none of the four required parameters (mode, agent_id, product_key, constraints) or the nested booleans (include_checkout_estimate, include_allowance_preview, include_proof_preparation). Only faint echoes ('no quote obtained', 'proof verification') hint at the constraint flags.

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 description states a specific verb and resource: 'Prepare an ordered sequence of supported planning and computation steps with explicit required fields,' and explicitly disclaims execution ('No step is executed, no quote obtained'). However, the purpose is buried behind payment and boundary boilerplate in the opening sentence, and it names no sibling tool to distinguish itself from the many *_rail and workflow peers.

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?

It implies usage context through the pricing model ('0.10 USDC per call on Base; 10 signed-wallet free calls') and prerequisites ('Existing product credentials, signed mandates, and single-use action grants remain required'), which helps an agent understand the conditions. But it never states when to choose this over siblings like wever_agent-work-order-rail or wever_unified-agent-checkout, leaving routing to inference.

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