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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false. The description adds substantial context beyond that: pricing (0.10 USDC/call, 10 free calls), the x402 402-body terms, credential requirements, and explicit negatives ('performs no provider work, callbacks, document retrieval or signed attestations'; 'grants no authority'). These are real behavioral disclosures, though the boundary prose is repetitive.

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 passage is long and front-loads payment terms rather than the tool's purpose, repeating the free/paid distinction and the 'bounded computation' claim multiple times. Core intent is not front-loaded, and several sentences are boilerplate that restate the same boundary.

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?

There is no output schema, all four parameters are undocumented, and the description never explains what the tool returns or how the prepared task is consumed. It over-invests in payment/legal framing while omitting the parameter and result information an agent actually needs to invoke it correctly.

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% with four required parameters (service_id, recipient_id, available_evidence, expected_evidence). The description explains none of them – not the service_id constant, the recipient_id 'mbx_' pattern, nor the evidence arrays and their duplicate/normalization rules. The schema carries almost everything and the description adds nothing.

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 core action is stated: 'Prepare a validated DiligenceOps task for a specific Connect recipient,' which gives a verb and resource. However, it is buried after payment logistics and legal boilerplate, and the description never differentiates this 'work-order-rail' from close siblings like wever_agent-work-order-exchange or wever_agent-decision-packet-rail. Purpose is inferable but the agent must dig for 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?

The description lists paid vs free computation paths and notes that 'submission, recipient permission and execution remain separate steps,' which is mild workflow context. It never says when to choose this tool over the many sibling rails, nor which recipient/permission prerequisites actually gate a successful call.

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