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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, but the description goes well beyond them: it enumerates the effects that will not occur (no network request, fetch, money movement, message, sharing, config change or external write), discloses the 0.10 USDC x402 charge with 10 free signed-wallet calls per 30 days, and specifies the X-Wever-Wallet-Proof binding and Ed25519 signed receipt. That is exactly the payment, auth and output-authenticity context an agent needs before invoking.

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 and required inputs are front-loaded before the verdicts, routing, endpoint and payment terms, and almost every clause carries decision-relevant information. It is nonetheless a single dense paragraph of roughly 150 words for a two-parameter tool, and the payment/auth metadata could be split from the semantic description for faster scanning.

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, but the description compensates by naming the four verdicts (unowned_agents, response_gaps, ownership_unverified, owned_before_incident) and the report contents, plus auth, cost, route and contract references. Nothing needed to call it correctly or interpret the result 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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning by explaining what the nested agent records must contain (production status, named owner and owner type, responder versus who is paged, fallback with who runs it and whether it has been exercised). It clarifies the distinction between 'responder' and 'paged' and the fallback taxonomy that the schema only lists as an enum.

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 (submit an agent operations setup, produce a signed ownership report) and spells out exactly what the report flags: production agents with no named owner, error paths with no responder or page, agents with no fallback or an unowned/untested one. It is distinguishable at a glance from the incident-plan, escalation-threshold and incident-evidence siblings.

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 explicitly routes three adjacent tools by scope ('Escalation timing is wever_escalation-threshold-check, the incident plan document is wever_incident-plan-check and evidence after an incident is wever_incident-evidence-check'), which tells the agent when this tool is the wrong choice. It stops short of a positive 'use this when' framing or stating prerequisites such as when a pre-incident ownership audit is warranted, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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