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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description reinforces this with an explicit no-network/no-write/no-money-movement guarantee. It goes further by disclosing pricing (0.10 USDC via x402 with 10 free calls), the X-Wever-Wallet-Proof binding requirement, and the Ed25519 signed receipt return, all beyond what annotations provide.

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 and verdict logic are front-loaded in the first two sentences, and the safety/pricing/auth details follow logically. It is dense but mostly earns its length; the trailing contract and human-page URLs are marginally useful rather than essential.

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 complex nested-input tool with no output schema, the description covers the input shape, the evaluation logic, the verdict values, the return artifact (signed report with Ed25519 receipt), and the payment/auth mechanics. 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 only 33%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains that each change carries why, files and spec ids, and that evidence contains diff summaries by file, test results with what each covers and the changes cited, and spec references. The optional label parameter is not mentioned, leaving a small gap.

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 coding agent's change claim plus evidence and receive a signed report on whether the evidence proves the claim. It enumerates the exact failure classes checked and the three verdicts, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like wever_claim-evidence-check or wever_spec-drift-check without opening a 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?

The description makes clear the input contract (claim with why/files/spec ids, evidence with diff/tests/spec refs) and the outcome, which implies when to use it. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state when-not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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