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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld=false, non-destructive), the description discloses that it reads only material in the call with no network request, fetch, money movement, message or external write. It also surfaces operationally critical facts the annotations cannot carry: paid endpoint at 0.10 USDC per call on Base via x402 exact, 10 signed-wallet free calls per rolling 30 days, and an X-Wever-Wallet-Proof header that must bind the JSON arguments and the tool route.

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?

Content density is justified by a five-parameter nested tool with payment and receipt semantics, and the purpose arrives first. However, the defect/verdict enumeration is delivered as long run-on clauses rather than a scan-friendly list, which costs some readability.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates fully by describing the report's findings and naming the four possible verdicts (fleet_known_anecdotally, roster_gaps, roster_unverified, single_current_roster) plus the Ed25519 signed receipt. Endpoint, contract path, and human documentation link are all supplied.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds real meaning by framing update_window as the tolerance that determines whether a change was 'showed late', and by clarifying what each list entry must record (keeper, roster naming, refresh practice, last update, agents with owners). It stops short of specifying formats for last_updated/at/as_of values, which are pattern-constrained strings only.

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 ('reads whether the organisation keeps one roster and keeps it current as agents come and go') and enumerates the exact defects the report covers. It also explicitly distinguishes the tool from two named siblings, wever_agent-registry-check (registry vs deployment/usage/credential/billing lists) and wever_discovery-coverage-check (external discovery surfaces).

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 is explicit: registry coverage questions go to wever_agent-registry-check, seller-discovery surfaces go to wever_discovery-coverage-check, and a sample is offered via wever_fleet-roster-sample. The scope boundary ('this reads whether the organisation keeps one roster') plus the 'When...' style exclusions leave little for the agent to infer.

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