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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: sandbox/demo behavior, sample package/receipt identifiers when omitted, no proof verification, no delivery, no authorization granted, never supplying server credentials, and that unavailable or non-JSON backends surface as tool errors. This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure for an adapter entry.

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 is dense with genuinely distinct information (availability, sandbox semantics, scope, prerequisites, error handling), but it is repetitive: packaging 'completed work for another agent' is stated twice, and it opens with the least actionable sentence ('Unavailable historical backend') rather than the core purpose. It is serviceable but not front-loaded or tight.

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?

With only one loosely specified parameter, no output schema, and annotations already covering safety, the description supplies the missing context an agent needs: availability caveats, non-capabilities, credential prerequisites, and error behavior. The main residual gap is the absence of guidance on which sibling handoff/receipt tool to pick instead.

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 0% and the single 'mode' parameter is documented only as 'the existing product POST body', so the description must compensate. It partially does by enumerating envelope contents (task summary, return package, exception object, receipt passport, callback target, next action) and by noting mode/arguments and required signed authority or grant, but it never explains the 'mode' value syntax or format, leaving the parameter loosely defined.

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 action and resource: it 'assembles a handoff envelope and hash' and packages completed work for another agent, listing concrete contents (task summary, return package, receipt passport, callback target). It also differentiates from siblings by explicitly disclaiming that it does not verify proof, deliver the handoff, or authorize the receiving agent. The confusing opening ('Unavailable historical backend') blurs the purpose slightly but does not obscure it.

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 gives usage context ('Package completed work so another agent can pick it up') and prerequisites ('existing product credentials, signed mandates, and single-use action grants remain required'), plus explicit non-capabilities. However, it never names an alternative sibling tool or states when to choose this over wever_return-package-viewer, wever_receipt-passport, or wever_proof-relay, leaving the when-to-use decision implied.

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