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

Beyond readOnlyHint/destructiveHint=false, it discloses the auth requirement (X-Wever-Wallet-Proof bound to the exact JSON arguments and route), the cost model (0.10 USDC per call on Base via x402 exact, 10 signed-wallet free calls per rolling 30 days), the no-side-effect scope in concrete terms, and the signed Ed25519 receipt. It also lists the exact verdict values returned, which annotations cannot convey.

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 opening sentence is extremely long and packs six distinct facts into one clause chain, which hurts front-loading. Operational details (endpoint, price, wallet proof, contract link) are appended as fragments after the analysis text. Every piece earns its place, but the structure could be tightened considerably.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the input semantics, the verdict set, the report contents, the signed receipt, the endpoint, and the payment/auth prerequisites. An agent has everything needed to decide whether to call it and how to construct a valid request.

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 75%, and the description compensates by mapping the record fields to their intended meaning — storage fidelity (exact/summarized/partial/absent), what the record references instead of holding, expiry and approval time, and how the call is rebuilt — plus the meaning of the pause parameter as the longest wait before execution. It does not explain the context_kept parameter's role in the verdict or the label field, leaving a small gap.

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 ('submit an approval record design') and enumerates exactly what the analysis covers: tool/argument storage fidelity, record location, references, expiry, approval time, execution build, and the longest pause. It explicitly separates itself from the sibling wever_approval-replay-check, so an agent can route between the two without opening either schema.

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 names one alternative and the exact condition that selects it ('Matching an executed call to its approval is wever_approval-replay-check'), which is a genuine when-not boundary. It stops short of covering the other nearby approval siblings (approval-chain-check, approval-version-check) or stating prerequisites for submitting a design, so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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