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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description corroborates and enriches this: 'Reads only the material in the call: no page fetch, no registry or chain lookup, no counterparty contact, and no payment signed, submitted or moved.' It further discloses pricing (0.10 USDC per call, 10 free signed-wallet calls per 30 days), the auth requirement (X-Wever-Wallet-Proof bound to exact JSON args and route), and that the response carries an Ed25519 signed receipt — all behavior an agent cannot get from annotations.

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?

Front-loads the purpose and the input modes, then layers on payment/auth/return details in a logical order. Dense but mostly earned; the trailing contract path and human page URL are lower-value for an agent and could be trimmed.

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, read-only check tool with no output schema, the description covers everything needed to invoke it correctly: accepted inputs, payment and free-call terms, the required wallet-proof header binding, the fact that nothing external is fetched, and the shape of the return (per-area covered/partial/not-covered with quotes plus a signed receipt).

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 baseline is 3. The description restates the two input modes ('text, fields ... or both') and enumerates the six field areas, but adds no format, sizing, or precedence detail beyond what the schema already documents (the 'field takes precedence over text' rule lives in 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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'check an operator's continuity arrangements' — and frames the scope as an 'Agent preflight' before relying on the operator. Among the many sibling check tools (delegation-check, payment-policy-check, etc.), the object of the check (continuity: key custody, successor, standing jobs, subscriptions, escrowed work, records export) makes it unmistakably distinct.

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?

Gives a clear trigger condition: 'before you rely on the operator', which tells the agent when this tool belongs in a workflow. It does not name an alternative tool or state when NOT to use it, which is a gap given the very large sibling set, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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