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

Beyond the annotations (read-only, closed-world, non-destructive), the description discloses the paid mechanics (0.10 USDC on Base via x402 exact, 10 signed-wallet free calls per rolling 30 days), the required X-Wever-Wallet-Proof binding to exact JSON arguments and route, and the Ed25519 signed receipt on the response. It also honestly scopes the engine's capability: it matches words, figures, dates and named items but does not interpret meaning beyond that matching — a material behavioral caveat an agent could not infer from structured fields.

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 and outcome are front-loaded, followed by endpoint, safety scope, pricing, auth binding and return format in a logical order. It is dense but nearly every sentence carries information; the contract path and human-page URL are the only marginally expendable items.

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 three parameters, an existing annotations block and no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: inputs, endpoint, payment and auth requirements, and the shape of the returned report and receipt. It stops short of error/refund behavior or what happens on malformed evidence bundles, which for a paid mutation-free call is a minor residual gap.

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 claims/evidence/format semantics are already documented with examples, splitting rules and size limits. The description adds context about what kinds of things get matched (units, FSC or LEED Gold labels, baseline or target years) but that is about output interpretation rather than parameter usage, so it does not go beyond the schema on inputs.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: submit environmental or sustainability claims plus the evidence offered for them, and states the outcome (a signed report marking each claim supported, contradicted or never mentioned). The 'environmental/sustainability' domain qualifier separates it from the many sibling evidence-check tools (claim, certification, privacy, terms, etc.) without needing to open their schemas.

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 gives clear context for when the tool applies and bounds the operation ('Reads only the material in the call: no page fetch, no account access, no merchant contact and no money movement'), which tells an agent not to use it for fetching or account-linked diligence. It never explicitly names an alternative sibling (e.g. claim-evidence-check or certification-evidence-check) or states when another domain-specific check should be chosen instead.

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