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

Beyond the annotations it discloses cost (0.10 USDC on Base via x402 exact), a quota (10 signed-wallet free calls per rolling 30 days), an auth requirement (X-Wever-Wallet-Proof bound to the exact JSON arguments and route), the side-effect-free scope, and that the response carries an Ed25519 signed receipt. All of this is consistent with readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the per-call payment is consistent with idempotentHint=false.

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?

Core function is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the later sentences each add distinct operational facts (scope, price, auth binding, receipt, contract link). It is a dense single paragraph with several comma-heavy clauses, which slightly hurts scannability, but no sentence is filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return contract itself: per-part verdict (supported/unsupported/contradicted), up to three quoted evidence lines with excerpt and offset, and named terms/figures lacking evidence. Payment, quota, auth-header binding and a contract URL are all present, so an agent has everything needed to invoke 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains claim as a string or list of parts, evidence as text or up to 200 {source, text} excerpts capped at 256 KB, and claim_kind as recorded context. The description restates the same shapes without adding format, splitting rules or guidance on when to send parts vs a single string, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete verb and resource (submit a claim plus its evidence, get back a signed support/contradiction report) and even enumerates the claim kinds product/listing/diligence. It does not differentiate itself from near-neighbours such as wever_data-evidence-check, wever_terms-evidence-check or wever_listing-check, so an agent still has to guess which check to route a given claim to.

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 states the required input pairing (a claim and the evidence offered for it) and gives a hard usage constraint: the tool reads only what is in the call, with no page fetch or account access, which implicitly rules it out when live retrieval is needed. It never explicitly names an alternative tool or a when-not-to-use condition against its evidence-check siblings.

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