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

Beyond the annotations it discloses the transport (POST), the payment model (0.10 USDC per call on Base mainnet via x402 exact, 10 shared free calls per rolling 30 days), the auth binding requirement (X-Wever-Wallet-Proof must bind to the exact JSON args and this path, not /mcp), and explicit authority limits (read-only, no writes, trading, autonomous fetches, spending or publication). It also explains the otherwise odd idempotentHint=false call count against the free-call quota. That is far more than the annotations carry.

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 and scope are front-loaded and every element is load-bearing, but the back half is dense with billing/authority prose that could be tightened (e.g. the 'API access billing is separate' sentence). It is well organized but longer than it needs to be.

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 compensates by enumerating the returned passport components, and it covers the two things an agent most needs to call it correctly: payment terms and the proof-binding rule. Nothing essential for a successful invocation appears to be missing.

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% and the single 'asset' parameter already documents id/ticker semantics, case-insensitivity, and an example, so the description adds little beyond repeating 'by its id or ticker.' Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Look up a covered tokenized asset by its id or ticker') and enumerates exactly what comes back (taxonomy stage, rights matrix, claim, backing, access, liquidity, risks, source trail). The 'by id or ticker' phrasing implicitly separates it from the sibling wever_atlas-asset-search, so an agent can route between them 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 gives clear usage context: this reads the versioned Atlas reference dataset 'not live market quotes,' which steers the agent away from price/market tools, and it points to /api/atlas-contract and the backend 402 body for billing terms. However, it never explicitly names or excludes the closest sibling (atlas-asset-search), so routing between lookup and search is left to inference.

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