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

Annotations cover the safety profile, and the description adds substantial non-redundant behavior: every execution re-reads the live remote API and returns dataset version, catalog counts, and retrieval evidence, so the agent knows results are not cached and the catalog may drift. It also discloses the billing model (0.10 USDC per call on Base mainnet, x402 exact, 10 shared signed-wallet free calls per rolling 30 days) and the X-Wever-Wallet-Proof argument binding, and separates read-only analysis from 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?

The first two sentences are well front-loaded, but the remainder packs route, price, free-tier quota, header binding, billing separation, and doc pointers into a dense block with some redundancy ('POST /api/atlas-rights-gap' and 'Paid URL: 0.10 USDC per call'). Every clause is informative but the packaging is heavier than needed.

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 carry return-shape information (field detail, source identifiers, sources checked evidence, dataset version, catalog counts, retrieval evidence), which is the right call. Remaining gaps are minor: field enum semantics and pagination bounds are left to the schema.

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 only 25% — asset is documented in-schema, while field, limit, and offset have no descriptions. The description compensates partially by saying it filters 'by asset or field' and paginates, but adds nothing about the field enum's meaning, the hard limit of 50, or the offset ceiling of 10000.

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?

Specific verb and resource: 'List Atlas rights fields marked not disclosed' plus what each row carries (field detail, source identifiers, sources checked evidence). It is distinguishable from siblings like wever_atlas-asset-passport or wever_atlas-compare, though it never names them explicitly to sharpen the contrast.

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 context is implied (rights disclosure gap analysis, filterable by asset or field) but there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use versus the other Atlas tools. The only routing guidance is procedural: 'Read /api/atlas-rights-contract and the backend 402 body for schemas and billing terms.'

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