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

Goes far beyond the annotations: it discloses paid pricing (0.10 USDC/call via x402 exact), a rate limit (10 signed-wallet free calls per rolling 30 days), the required X-Wever-Wallet-Proof binding to exact JSON args and path, header-forwarding behavior, and an explicit read-only authority list. Annotations only cover the safety profile, so this text carries substantial extra operational context.

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?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded in the first two sentences, and most sentences carry distinct information (data source, result provenance, endpoint, billing, auth, authority). It is dense and slightly over-loaded with negation lists and billing meta, but nothing is truly redundant.

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 does describe the return shape ('paginated summaries') and result provenance (source dates and provisional/unverified labels), and it covers billing, auth, and authority constraints. Only the limit/offset parameter semantics remain thin, so it is nearly complete for a 4-param read tool.

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 50% (query and category documented; limit and offset not). The description hints at pagination and 'within the result limit' but adds no format or default detail for limit/offset, and its query/category phrasing largely restates the schema. It partially compensates for the gap but not fully.

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 (search) and resource (covered tokenized assets) with the retrieval mechanism (literal text or category) and return shape (paginated summaries). It also distinguishes the data source ('versioned Atlas reference dataset, not live market quotes'), though it never names the nearest sibling (wever_atlas-asset-passport) to route the agent explicitly.

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?

Provides one useful behavioral rule ('Empty arguments list all covered assets within the result limit') and a pointer to /api/atlas-contract for exact terms, which implies usage. However, it never says when to choose this tool over atlas-asset-passport or any other sibling, so the routing decision 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.