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

Annotations already declare readOnly and closed-world, and the description goes well beyond them: no network request, no money movement, no sharing or configuration change, plus pricing mechanics (0.10 USDC per call on Base via x402, 10 signed-wallet free calls per rolling 30 days), the X-Wever-Wallet-Proof binding requirement, and an Ed25519 signed receipt. It also explains that a POST route is nevertheless a pure read of supplied text, resolving the only place where the HTTP verb could confuse an agent.

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 report contents are front-loaded in the first two sentences, which is good, but the remainder is a dense run of payment, header-binding, contract-link, and human-page-URL sentences that compete for attention. The raw route string and the marketing links carry little decision value for an agent choosing or invoking the tool.

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-report tool with no output schema, the description covers the verdict vocabulary, per-point determinable/ambiguous/absent marking with quoted deciding text, the follow-up question per open point, payment and proof binding, and the read-only guarantee. Nothing material an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so the schema already defines label, merchant, product_page, returns_text, shipping_text, and checkout_summary. The description restates the four material types but adds no format, size, or precedence guidance beyond the schema, so this sits at the baseline.

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 states a specific verb and resource (submit pasted merchant/checkout material, get a signed clarity report) and enumerates exactly what the report determines: final price with shipping and tax, availability, delivery estimate, and return policy. It distinguishes itself from one sibling (wever_endpoint-reliability-check) for live probing, but leaves differentiation from neighbouring tools like wever_shipping-check or wever_unified-agent-checkout to inference.

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 says clearly when to use it (you have pasted page/checkout/shipping/returns text and need an auditable answer about whether an agent can determine key terms) and names the alternative for live endpoint probing. It also implicitly requires at least one supplied text block, matching the anyOf in the schema, but it never states an explicit when-not-to-use beyond that single exclusion.

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