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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces that with concrete detail: it reads only the material in the call and signs, submits or moves nothing. Beyond that it discloses the cost and access model – 0.10 USDC per call on Base via x402 exact, ten signed-wallet free calls per rolling 30 days, and X-Wever-Wallet-Proof bound to the exact JSON arguments and route – plus an Ed25519 signed receipt. It does not cover failure modes or what happens when the proof is missing or the payment fails.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, but the body is a single dense run-on that mixes input shape, output content, read-only guarantees, pricing, wallet authentication, and links. Every element is arguably useful, yet the lack of paragraph or bullet structure makes it harder to scan than it needs to be for a definition of this length.

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 no output schema, the description correctly compensates by stating what the report contains: bands laid end to end from zero, who approves each band, whether dual control is required, and the six named gap types. It also covers payment, wallet authentication, the contract route and the human page. What remains thin is error behavior and how the report is delimited, though the signed receipt is mentioned.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does enumerate the field set (approvers as text or bands of {approver, from, up_to, required}, dual_control, fallback, expiry, currency) and says text and fields may be combined, but it adds no semantics beyond the schema – notably it omits the precedence rule that structured fields override text, which is documented only in 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?

The description states a concrete verb and resource: check an own approval and escalation arrangement before an agent spends under it, and it labels itself "round 3" of a preflight series. This lets an agent tell it apart from generic policy checks, but it never names the nearest siblings (wever_spending-policy-check, wever_payment-policy-check, wever_delegated-authority), so the boundary is inferred rather than stated.

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 trigger condition is explicit: run this before an agent spends under an arrangement. Scope exclusions are also usefully stated – no page fetch, no registry or chain lookup, no counterparty contact, no payment moved – which implicitly routes fetch/lookup work elsewhere. There is no explicit "use X instead when..." sentence naming an alternative tool.

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