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

Goes well past the annotations by disclosing the read source and frequency (published Atlas dataset, once per call), the absence of dataset writes and issuer contact, dataset-version stamping, the 'not in the published dataset' convention for missing fields, x402 pricing at 0.10 USDC on Base with 10 free signed-wallet calls per rolling 30 days, and the X-Wever-Wallet-Proof binding requirement. The Ed25519 signed receipt return behavior is also stated.

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-loaded with purpose, which is good, but the text is dense and carries artifacts an agent does not need for tool selection, such as the raw route 'POST /api/atlas-market-brief', the contract path '/api/atlas-board-contract', and the human page URL. The payment and wallet-proof clauses could be tightened without losing meaning.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so by describing the report contents and the signed receipt. Payment, auth binding, and version stamping are all covered; only failure/error behavior and pagination-style concerns are unaddressed, which is minor for a no-argument brief.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the description correctly reinforces this with 'call with no arguments' and the schema confirms it. Nothing more is required here.

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 concrete verb and resource ('The signed brief covers the whole board...') and enumerates the exact contents: asset count, per-stage assets and rights counts, disclosed vs not disclosed across six rights fields, and catalog rights coverage. The scope word 'whole board' implicitly separates it from stage- and issuer-scoped Atlas siblings, though no sibling is named directly.

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?

'Atlas evidence: call with no arguments' sets the invocation context and the 'whole board' framing hints at when to pick this over a narrower brief. However, it never explicitly says when to use this instead of wever_atlas-stage-brief, wever_atlas-issuer-brief or wever_atlas-rights-gap, 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.