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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive and openWorld=false, so the description's added value is the payment model: 0.10 USDC per call on Base via x402 exact, a shared 10 free signed-wallet calls per rolling 30 days, and the X-Wever-Wallet-Proof binding to exact JSON arguments and route. It also discloses the Ed25519 signed receipt. It does not mention retry/idempotency behavior, which is notable since idempotentHint=false and calls cost money.

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 core capability and output shape are front-loaded in the first two sentences, followed by the parse-failure rule, then the endpoint and payment mechanics. A few items (contract URL, human page URL) are peripheral but short. It is dense yet readable.

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 only two simple parameters and no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden itself by describing the report fields (offset, party, action, category, due date/relative period/unparsed), the timeline, unparsed-date reasons, and the Ed25519 signature. Combined with the annotations and full schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret results.

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%, and both parameters (text, title) are already documented in the schema with limits and examples. The description restates the 256 KB cap and the type of documents but adds no format, encoding or truncation guidance beyond the schema. 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 specific verb (submit document text) and resource (dates and obligations), states the cap (256 KB) and the exact return (a signed report with quoted obligations and a timeline). An agent can tell this apart from sibling checks such as wever_invoice-check or wever_terms-evidence-check because the output is explicitly date/obligation-extraction based.

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?

Usage is implied by the input examples (contract, statement of work, policy, notice, schedule) and the deep-output detail, but it never states when to prefer this over the many sibling check tools or what to do if the document is out of scope. No explicit exclusions or alternative routing is given.

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