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

Well beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the call performs no network request, fetch, money movement, message, sharing, configuration change or external write, that it returns an Ed25519 signed receipt, that it is paid at 0.10 USDC per call on Base via x402 exact with 10 free signed-wallet calls per rolling 30 days, and that X-Wever-Wallet-Proof must be bound to the exact JSON arguments and route. These are exactly the operational facts an agent needs before invoking a metered endpoint.

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?

The core purpose is front-loaded, but the middle is a single very long clause enumerating report findings, followed by dense boilerplate on pricing, wallet proof, contract path and human page. Each piece is relevant, yet the whole reads as a wall of prose that could be trimmed into shorter, scannable sentences.

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 three-parameter check with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the outcome vocabulary (cap_undefined, breach_unruled, caps_unverified, caps_defined), the report's signed receipt, and the cost/auth model. Only the report's internal structure and the meaning of an empty cases array are left unstated.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning by spelling out the scope options (one order, one agent, one counterparty, the portfolio), the breach behaviours (reject, downsize, split, queue, allow), and the pairing of caps with recorded requests that met a cap. It stops short of explaining the rule/records_change interaction or the amount-as-string form.

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 gives a specific verb and resource (submit an exposure or spend cap design and have it checked) and immediately enumerates the input dimensions and the findings the report names. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from two named siblings, wever_firewall-order-check and wever_approval-policy-check, so an agent can place it in the family without opening any schema.

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?

Routing guidance is explicit: per-order payment-flow checks go to wever_firewall-order-check and approvals against a standing limit go to wever_approval-policy-check. It also states the read-only scope of the call. What is missing is a when-not-to-use condition (for example, no caps defined yet) or any note on minimum viable input beyond the required caps array.

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