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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations, it discloses that the call touches only in-band material (no network, fetch, money movement, sharing, or config change), states the paid pricing model with the free-call allowance, and specifies the X-Wever-Wallet-Proof signing requirement bound to the exact JSON arguments. That is substantial behavior an agent could not infer from the annotations.

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 output content are front-loaded, and the later sentences cover payment, signing, and contract details that genuinely affect invocation. The prose is dense and comma-chained in places, but little of it is filler.

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 burden of describing returns and does so by naming the three verdicts and the signed receipt. Combined with the auth, payment, and contract pointers, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns more by framing the two arrays as the semantic pair being compared and by noting the wallet proof must be bound to the exact JSON arguments, a call-construction constraint absent from the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource - submit an agent's access list plus authority grant and get a signed scope report - and enumerates exactly what the report contains (reachable actions/data outside the grant, ungrantable actions, remediation). It also disambiguates from a nearby sibling by handing approver-band checks to wever_approval-chain-check.

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 makes clear this is the tool for comparing granted authority against actual access, and explicitly redirects the adjacent approver-band question to wever_approval-chain-check. What's missing is any when-not-to-use or prerequisite framing beyond the payment/auth mechanics.

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