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

Annotations already cover readOnly/non-destructive/non-open-world, and the description still adds substantial behavior: paid endpoint at 0.10 USDC on Base via x402 exact, 10 free signed-wallet calls per 30 days, required X-Wever-Wallet-Proof binding to exact JSON args and route, and an Ed25519 signed receipt in the response. It also discloses a real limitation — the report matches words, figures, dates and named items but does not interpret meaning.

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-loaded with the action and the brief's contents before payment mechanics; every block is relevant. It is dense and the trailing contract/human-page URLs and pricing detail could be trimmed without losing call correctness, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 full burden of explaining returns, and it does: a report with an Ed25519 signed receipt and an explicit statement of the matching scope and its limits. Payment, auth proof, and free-tier behavior are all covered for a low-parameter single-call tool.

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% and each parameter, including the format enum and its default heuristic, is already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the single-excerpt scope ('the submitted texts') but adds no syntax or format guidance beyond that, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('submit one escrow agreement excerpt') and then enumerates exactly what the produced brief contains — parties/roles, amount, release conditions, dispute path, fees, deadlines, plus gaps. That level of output specification makes it distinguishable from siblings like wever_escrow-quote or wever_verify-and-release.

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 clear operating context: reads only the submitted material, no page fetch, no account access, no money movement — which implicitly steers agents away from executory siblings. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state when to prefer escrow-quote or verify-and-release, so a routing sentence is the only missing piece.

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