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

Goes well beyond the supplied annotations: states it reads only the material in the call with no page fetch, account access, merchant contact or money movement, discloses pricing (0.10 USDC per call on Base via x402 exact), the 10 free signed-wallet calls per rolling 30 days, the required X-Wever-Wallet-Proof binding to arguments and route, the Ed25519 signed receipt, and the matching-only (non-interpretive) semantics. Nothing contradicts readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/destructiveHint, and the cost-per-call context explains the idempotentHint=false annotation.

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 the purpose and the report contents, then cost/auth, then scope limits; almost every sentence is load-bearing. It runs long as one undivided block, and the trailing contract path and marketing URL are the least essential pieces.

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, signed-receipt tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return shape (per-figure verdicts, quotes, unsupported-figure list), the semantics limit, the auth header requirement and the price, which is everything an agent needs to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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%, including an example claim, the 256 KB source limit, and the html/text default rule, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description only adds that the claim and the source text it cites are the paired inputs; it says nothing about the optional format or source_label parameters.

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 (submit a benchmark or performance claim plus the cited source text) and then specifies exactly what the returned report contains: every figure, whether the source states it, the supporting quote, and the unsupported figures listed separately. The 'benchmark or performance claim' scope is narrow enough to be distinguishable from the many sibling *-evidence-check tools even though none are named.

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 agent learns the tool matches words, figures, dates and named items and does not interpret meaning, which helps decide fit, but there is no explicit 'use this instead of X' routing among the closely related siblings (wever_claim-evidence-check, wever_pricing-evidence-check, wever_data-evidence-check, wever_sla-evidence-check, wever_terms-evidence-check, wever_status-evidence-check). The read-only/no-fetch statement gives partial context on when it is the right call.

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