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

Annotations only give the safety profile (readOnly, openWorld, non-idempotent, non-destructive); the description adds substantially more: 0.10 USDC per call on Base mainnet via x402 exact, a shared pool of 10 signed-wallet free calls per rolling 30 days, the X-Wever-Wallet-Proof binding requirement, and an explicit authority ceiling (no writes, trading, fetches, spending or publication). It even explains the non-idempotency implied by the annotations via per-call usage recording and payment settlement.

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-loads purpose and data-source distinction in the first two sentences, then moves to billing/auth, then authority limits. Dense but each sentence carries operational weight; the contract-doc pointer at the end is slightly trailing but still useful.

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 paid, proof-gated tool with no output schema and one parameter, the description covers pricing, quota, auth binding, data provenance and authority scope, and lists the passport's constituent sections. It stops short of describing the actual return shape or the failure/402 flow in detail, deferring that to external docs.

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 single 'asset' parameter is already fully documented with pattern, length bounds and a case-insensitive example. The description's 'by its id or ticker' adds nothing the schema does not already say, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('look up a covered tokenized asset by its id or ticker and return its full sourced Asset Passport') and enumerates the payload sections. It also carves out what the tool is not ('not live market quotes'), but it never names the obvious sibling wever_atlas-asset-search, so the agent must infer the routing itself.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the 'not live market quotes' clause hints at when this is appropriate, and the pointer to /api/atlas-contract covers schema questions. But there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use against wever_atlas-asset-search, which is the most likely alternative for asset lookups.

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