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

Goes well past the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations: discloses the paid URL, 0.10 USDC per call via x402 exact on Base mainnet, the shared 10 free signed-wallet calls per rolling 30 days, the mandatory X-Wever-Wallet-Proof header bound to the exact JSON args and path, that fees are separate from locked principal, the 14-day expiry with signed timeout refund subject to settlement confirmation and UTC daily cap, and that external custody/security audit is still pending.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, then payment/auth/mutation-boundary details follow in reasonable order. The single dense block is somewhat run-on (payment, expiry, audit and contract pointer all chained), but nearly every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, it covers the operation, payment/auth requirements, mutation prohibitions, expiry behavior and where to find schemas. The one notable gap is that nothing describes the returned receipt-chain contents or the dispute_id it must supply.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, but it never explains dispute_id — not the dp_ prefix, the 64-hex format, nor whether it identifies the dispute being read. 'Requires a party wallet proof' concerns auth, not the parameter.

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 (Read) and resource (the dispute and full operator-signed receipt chain) and enumerates the scope it covers: opening, evidence submissions, extension, resolution or timeout. This clearly separates it from the mutation siblings wever_dispute-open, wever_dispute-submit-evidence and wever_dispute-resolve.

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?

Explicitly frames this as the read path ('Read-only: no settlement, signing or reconciliation'), which routes an agent away from the mutating dispute tools, and points to /api/dispute-contract for schemas and recovery limits. It does not, however, name a sibling alternative or state when reading is preferable to e.g. wever_dispute-resolve.

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