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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description reinforces this with concrete scope limits: 'no page fetch, no registry or chain lookup, no counterparty contact, and no payment signed, submitted or moved.' It also discloses cost (0.10 USDC on Base via x402, 10 free signed-wallet calls per rolling 30 days) and the X-Wever-Wallet-Proof binding requirement, which annotations cannot express. It stops short of describing failure modes or what happens when the wallet proof is missing or the free allowance is exhausted, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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 purpose and the sibling exclusion, then inputs, then output, then commerce and contract details — a sensible ordering. It is dense and the gap enumeration ('no detection path, no notification window, no named owner...') partly duplicates the field list already given two sentences earlier, which keeps it from 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 read-only analysis tool with no output schema, it covers the input modes, the shape of the returned report (per-area covered/partial/not-covered with quotes, plus a signed Ed25519 receipt), pricing and authentication, and links to the contract and human page. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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 each of text, fields and its sub-keys is already documented in the schema. The description only restates the enumeration of areas and the text/fields/both choice, adding no format hints, precedence rules, or size limits beyond what the schema carries. Baseline 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 object ('check your own incident response plan'), names the exact areas examined, and explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling wever_incident-evidence-check ('vendor's past incident record against its claims'). An agent can route 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?

Gives the trigger condition ('check your own incident response plan before you depend on it'), an explicit exclusion plus the alternative tool to use for that case, and the input-mode choice (text, fields, or both). Nothing about when-to-use is left to inference.

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