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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses the x402 payment model (0.10 USDC per call on Base, 10 free signed-wallet calls per 30 days), the required X-Wever-Wallet-Proof header binding, and that a report with an Ed25519 signed receipt is returned. It also discloses determinism ('arithmetic on the supplied figures only') and the exact verdict outputs, which the readOnly/closed-world hints alone would not convey.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: it leads with the submit-and-forecast purpose, then verdicts, then constraints, then payment/auth details. Nearly every sentence carries actionable information; the trailing contract/human-page URLs are marginal but brief and do not disrupt structure.

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 deterministic, read-only forecast tool with no output schema, the description fully covers inputs, processing semantics, output shape (report plus signed receipt, verdict), payment/auth requirements, and negative guarantees. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 parameters are already documented in the schema (as_of starts forecast next day, period default behavior, reserve_floor default 0, etc.). The description summarizes the parameter set (balance with date, commitments, recent spend, optional reserve floor, horizon) but adds little syntax or meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 balance/commitments/spend to project outflows by week or month and get a floor_crossed/floor_held verdict. It also scopes what the tool is NOT by contrasting with sibling treasury tools: 'Arithmetic on the supplied figures only: no market data' and 'no wallet, chain, market, bank or counterparty lookup.' An agent can distinguish this forecast tool from wever_treasury-balance or wever_treasury-flows without opening any 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?

Provides clear context for when the tool applies (projecting balance outflows against a reserve floor over a horizon) and scope exclusions (no market data, no lookups, no money movement). It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling to route to, but the exclusions effectively define the boundary against lookups-based treasury tools.

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