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

Goes well past the annotations: it discloses the per-call price (0.10 USDC on Base via x402 exact), the ten free signed-wallet calls per rolling 30 days, the X-Wever-Wallet-Proof binding requirement tied to the exact JSON arguments and route, and the Ed25519 signed receipt in the return. It also sets an explicit analytical boundary — it matches words, figures, dates and named items but does not interpret meaning — and confirms the read-only scope (no page fetch, no account access, no contact, no money movement), all consistent with readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the operational facts are grouped sensibly, but the report sentence is a long run-on stuffed with parallel examples, and the trailing contract/page/pricing URLs add bulk that could be tightened. Every element is relevant, yet the density and length work against quick scanning.

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 disclosure burden and largely meets it: it explains the report's verdict categories, quotes, and the signed receipt, plus cost, authentication, and scope limits. What is missing is any sense of report structure or size (e.g., how verdicts map to clauses, pagination or truncation behavior), which is minor for a single-call check.

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 coverage is 100%, so properties, field names, sizes and the format enum's default rule are already documented structurally. The description restates the field list and the text/fields/both input modes and adds no format guidance or precedence detail beyond what the schema already carries, making this a baseline case where the schema does the work.

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 concrete verb and resource: submit a counterparty DPA or its key clauses (as text, fields, or both) and receive a signed report marking roles, purpose limits, sub-processor terms, breach window, transfer mechanism, and deletion/return as present, missing, ambiguous or one-sided. The scope is unmistakable, but it never distinguishes itself from adjacent checks in the sibling list (wever_privacy-evidence-check, wever_subprocessor-evidence-check, wever_terms-evidence-check), leaving an agent to infer the boundary.

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 implies usage by enumerating exactly what to submit and what the output will classify, including the failure patterns it looks for, which nudges the agent toward using it for DPA review. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no routing to alternative tools for adjacent diligence checks, so selection among siblings remains a guess.

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