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

Goes well beyond the annotations by enumerating what is deliberately excluded (no page fetch, no registry or chain lookup, no counterparty contact, no payment signed, submitted or moved), which substantiates openWorldHint=false. It also discloses pricing (0.10 USDC per call on Base via x402 exact, 10 free signed-wallet calls per rolling 30 days), the wallet-proof binding requirement, and that the response carries an Ed25519 signed receipt.

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 in the first two sentences, with payment and auth details after. It is a single dense block and includes endpoint path plus human page URL, which are useful but could be split or trimmed for readability.

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 still explains the return artifact precisely: a signed report marking grantee, scope, caps, expiry, revocation and approvals as present, missing or ambiguous with quotes, flagging uncapped actions and terms with no expiry, plus an Ed25519 receipt. For a nested-schema tool this covers what an agent needs to call and interpret it.

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 text, fields, scope, expiry, caps, revocation, approvals and format. The description's field list largely restates the schema and adds no detail on the `label` parameter or how the format enum interacts with fenced input.

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 a delegation or mandate document') plus a clear temporal framing ('before you act under it'). The read-only, in-call-only nature separates it from mutation siblings such as wever_mandate-issue or wever_mandate-revoke without naming them.

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: run it as preflight on a delegation or mandate before acting under that authority. It does not name alternatives or exclusions (e.g. when to prefer wever_delegated-authority or wever_payment-authority-inspector), so routing between the many wever check tools remains partly inferential.

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