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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the tool reads only supplied material, performs no network request or external write, returns an Ed25519 signed receipt, and is paid at 0.10 USDC per call with 10 free signed-wallet calls. It also states the required wallet-proof binding, which is exactly the kind of operational context annotations do not cover.

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 description is front-loaded with the core purpose and comparison behavior, and the later pricing/auth details are operationally relevant. It is dense and includes many parenthetical enumerations, so it is slightly overstuffed, but the length is mostly justified by the nested input and paid access requirements.

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 complex nested-input tool with no output schema, the description explains the comparison result shape, verdicts, signed receipt, read-only behavior, endpoint, and payment/auth requirements. An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly and understand what it will and will not do.

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 low at 33%, but the description compensates by mapping the key nested fields: directory, listing URL, endpoint, network, version, count, status, read date, served and retired endpoints, and live networks. It adds real meaning beyond the schema, though it does not explain every nested field such as the optional label in the same detail.

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 states a specific verb and resource: checking an external directory/registry listing against the live service’s own facts. It also explicitly names the sibling tools for Wever’s own surfaces and discovery coverage, so the agent can distinguish this tool without opening 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 routing guidance by naming wever_listing-check, wever_directory-listing-check, wever_catalog-listing-check, and wever_discovery-coverage-check as alternatives for specific cases. The scope is explicit: use this for external listings on someone else’s directory or registry, not Wever’s own surfaces.

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