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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is largely covered, yet the description adds substantial context beyond them: no page fetch, no account access, no merchant contact, no money movement; a paid x402 exact charge of 0.10 USDC on Base with 10 signed-wallet free calls per rolling 30 days; and an X-Wever-Wallet-Proof that must be bound to the exact JSON arguments and route. The only real omission is the report's shape/fields, which is partly covered by the signed-receipt statement.

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?

Long but front-loaded: the core action and report content come first, followed by side-effect boundaries, pricing, auth binding and return type. A few trailing items (contract path, human page URL) are operational boilerplate rather than decision-relevant, which keeps 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?

For a 4-parameter, no-output-schema tool it covers what an agent needs: inputs, what the report contains, that it is Ed25519 signed, that it is read-only with no external fetching, and the payment/auth mechanics. It does not enumerate the report's fields or error behavior, but the essential decision and invocation information is present.

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 schema already documents all four parameters including the format enum's default behavior and size limits. The description adds conceptual meaning about what is compared (words, figures, dates, named items) but no per-parameter syntax or constraints beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 a guarantee as promised ... and the guarantee terms') and precisely what the returned report contains: deadlines, conditions, exclusions, fees and credit-in-place-of-money, each quoted. It also draws a sharp line against interpretation-heavy siblings by saying it matches words, figures, dates and named items and 'does not interpret meaning beyond that matching', which distinguishes it from tools like wever_terms-evidence-check or wever_warranty-check.

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?

The framing 'DiligenceOps: submit a guarantee as promised ... and the guarantee terms' implies the when-to-use case, and 'Reads only the material in the call: no page fetch, no account access' implies a when-not (use something that fetches pages if the terms are not already in hand). However, no sibling alternative is named explicitly, so the agent must infer which of the many evidence-check tools to pick.

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