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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, and the description reinforces and extends this: 'Reads only the material in the call: no network request, fetch, money movement, message, sharing, configuration change or external write.' It goes further with the auth requirement (bind X-Wever-Wallet-Proof to the exact JSON arguments and the tool route), pricing (0.10 USDC on Base via x402 exact, 10 signed-wallet free calls per rolling 30 days), and the fact that the response carries an Ed25519 signed receipt.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, but the opening sentence is a long colon-delimited run-on that lists eight fields in prose rather than letting the schema do that work. Operational boilerplate (endpoint path, x402 pricing, contract path, human page URL) is appended in a dense block. The content mostly earns its place, but the phrasing is heavier than needed.

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, so the description must convey what comes back — and it does: a verdict of platform_locked/partly_portable/portable, what breaks on revocation or platform closure, and every capability stranded on a platform-kept identity. It also discloses the read-only guarantee, payment model, and signed receipt. The remaining gap is the detailed report structure, which is described at a summary level only.

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 75% with four top-level params and deep nesting, so the schema carries substantial weight. The description nonetheless walks the nested identity fields in plain language (issuer, kind, key holder, verification path, export, revokers, accepting platforms, capabilities with what each is tied to), giving an agent the semantic frame the schema only enumerates. The optional `label` parameter is not mentioned, leaving a small gap.

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 names a specific verb and resource (submit an agent identity setup, get a portability verdict) and enumerates exactly what input material is analyzed: issuer, kind, key holder, verifier, export path, revokers, accepting platforms, and carried capabilities. It explicitly separates itself from the nearest sibling: 'Identity record consistency is wever_agent-identity-check.' An agent can choose between the two without opening either 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?

Usage context is clear: analyze whether an identity can be presented and verified outside its issuing platform, and it names the sibling to use for a different question (record consistency). It also states the verdict vocabulary (platform_locked, partly_portable, portable) so the agent knows what kind of answer to expect. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use conditions or prerequisites for the input shape.

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