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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing pricing (0.10 USDC per call on Base via x402), the 10 free signed-wallet calls per rolling 30 days, the X-Wever-Wallet-Proof binding requirement, and that the response carries an Ed25519 signed receipt. It also preempts the biggest risk question for a quote tool by stating it moves no money and creates no escrow. Non-idempotency is consistent with a paid call that produces a freshly 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 purpose then inputs then returns, which is the right order, and the fee/proof details are operationally necessary. It is dense, and the contract path plus human page URL add length, though both are plausibly useful references for an agent debugging a failed call.

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 return-value burden itself and does so thoroughly: fitted rail, live caps and timing windows, release and refund outcomes, per-call fees and payer, fee total, and failure reasons. Auth, price, and endpoint are all covered, leaving nothing material an agent needs before calling.

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?

At 50% schema description coverage, the description compensates by naming all four inputs, marking expires_at as optional, spelling out the payer/payee pair, and enumerating the five release_condition types (time, oracle_attestation, payer_approval, mutual_approval, delivery_attestation). It does not clarify the amount precision rules or the address format, which the schema handles instead.

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: 'quote the exact escrow terms and fees for a shape before anyone commits', and clarifies it does not move money or create escrow. That separates it from the execution siblings (wever_workorder-fund, wever_payout-execute) in spirit, but no sibling is named explicitly, so an agent must infer which tool to use for the actual commit step.

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 context for use: pre-commitment diligence, with the explicit condition that the quote moves no money and creates no escrow. The natural next step (executing the quoted rail) is implied rather than pointed at by name, so the when-to-use case is strong but the handoff to an alternative tool is not spelled out.

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