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

Beyond the annotations it discloses pricing (0.10 USDC per call on Base via x402, 10 free signed-wallet calls per rolling 30 days), required auth headers (X-Wever-Wallet-Proof bound to exact JSON arguments, plus Payment-Signature for paid calls), lifecycle bounds (expires_at up to 30 days, max_deliveries), and the return shape (a report with an Ed25519 signed receipt). It also confirms the additive, non-mutating nature of routing, consistent with destructiveHint=false.

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 the core action before cost, auth, and lifecycle details, and every major sentence carries useful information. Minor redundancy: the operator list duplicates the schema enum verbatim, and 'byte for byte' plus the non-alteration guarantee is repeated across the description.

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 nested-object, mutation-style registration tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what is created, how filtering works, when the rule expires, auth and payment requirements, and the fact that a signed-receipt report is returned. Nothing material is left to inference.

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 concrete condition examples (/outcome equals failed, /result/report/verdict equals outside_window, /observation/value above 120) that show how field paths and operators combine in practice. It also restates the 30-day expires_at ceiling and the 'both must match' semantics for filter, adding modest value over the schema.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: "register one routing rule for the paying wallet," and names the endpoint POST /api/alert-route. It also distinguishes itself from the underlying watch/schedule tools by stating "Routing never changes the original delivery; it adds one," so an agent can tell it apart from wever_watch-create or wever_schedule-create.

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 establishes clear context for use — forwarding matching watch fires or standing-job results to a callback_url — and clarifies the source_tool domain (wever_watch-fire or a schedulable tool). It never states when NOT to use it or points to a sibling (e.g., to create the underlying watch use wever_watch-create), so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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