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

Annotations already cover readOnly/openWorld/destructive, and the description reinforces them with 'no network request, fetch, money movement, message, sharing, configuration change or external write'. It adds substantial context the annotations cannot: x402 pricing (0.10 USDC on Base), the 10 free signed-wallet calls per 30 days, the X-Wever-Wallet-Proof binding to exact JSON args and route, and an Ed25519 signed receipt. It does not explain what makes a call fail payment or how partial/unverifiable input is handled.

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-loaded with the operation and outcome, and the sibling routing sentence is efficient. However the opening sentence is a long chain of nested clauses and the '(tools, data and spending)' triple is repeated verbatim three times, which bloats an otherwise tight definition.

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 nested, four-parameter evaluation tool with no output schema, the description covers input shape, evaluation surface, verdict values, read-only guarantee, cost and payment proof, receipt type, and links to the contract and human page. Nothing material needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 75%, so the schema carries most of the burden, but the description still adds a usable conceptual model: the contrast between what a task 'needs' versus what the receiver 'gets', and the four ways access can reach the receiver, when it ends, and whether it can be passed on. Some of this restates enum meanings already present in the schema, so it is value-adding rather than essential.

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 concrete verb and resource — submits a delegation setup (sender access, per-task needs, receiver grant, via/ends/redelegation) and returns a signed report — then enumerates exactly what the report flags. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from three named siblings, so an agent can route 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?

Gives explicit when-not-to-use routing: a buyer acting for a human principal goes to wever_delegated-identity-check, an agent meant to change nothing to wever_read-only-scope-check, and sender access against its own authority grant to wever_authority-scope-check. The condition that selects this tool (agent-to-agent task delegation) is stated, along with the four possible verdicts.

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