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

Beyond the annotations (which only declare non-read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive), the description discloses what the tool will never do ("never signs, submits or initiates transfers and rejects payment headers"), the auth mechanism required per action, and the downstream fee/refund traits of the escrow rail. This is exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot express.

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 purpose is front-loaded and most clauses earn their place, but the paragraph is a dense run of long compound sentences mixing tool behavior, auth, sibling-rail fees and legal disclaimers. It would scan faster as short separated lines; nothing is truly wasted, but structure is a weakness.

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 seven-action tool with no output schema, the description covers the lifecycle (create order, escrow observation, shipment, delivery, receipt verification), the public/authenticated split, and safety disclaimers. It stops short of describing per-action return content or the status action's role, leaving minor gaps given the multi-action surface.

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 reported at 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds value on top by indicating which action is public versus proof-bound and by characterizing the create/record/verify steps of the lifecycle. It does not explain the idempotency_key requirement or the distinction between verify_payment and verify_release, so it only partially complements 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 names a specific verb+resource (owner-operated boutique acceptance order for a dedicated 1.00 USDC test product on Base mainnet) and states scope exclusions ("No catalog items"), which separates it from boutique-list-products/product-detail. It is somewhat overloaded with disclaimers, but an agent can identify the tool's function without opening the schema.

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 gives explicit conditions ("quote is public; other actions require a request-bound X-Wever-Wallet-Proof") and routes the funding/release step to the alternative ("the human executes separately approved funding and release through the unchanged wever_agent-escrow-lite tool"). It does not compare against the closer boutique siblings (create-order, record-shipment, confirm-delivery), so the routing is clear but not exhaustive.

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