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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the call reads only supplied material, performs no page fetch or account access, costs 0.10 USDC via x402, offers ten free signed-wallet calls per rolling 30 days, requires X-Wever-Wallet-Proof bound to the arguments and route, and returns an Ed25519 signed receipt. These are substantive behavioral details an agent needs before invoking it.

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?

The description is front-loaded with purpose and output shape, and most of its detail is useful for a paid, signed report tool. It is somewhat repetitive about creating nothing and moving no money, and the contract/human-page URLs are less essential, but the structure remains clear.

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 paid tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it explains the report contents, the signed receipt, the payment model, the wallet-proof binding, and the non-access constraints. An agent can understand both what it will receive and what it must provide.

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 already 83%, and the description largely restates the documented parameters: description, optional budget, currency, deadline, and milestone count. It adds context that the budget is split to the cent across milestones, but it does not mention the optional title parameter or add constraints beyond the schema.

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 a plain-language job description and receive a signed brief. It explicitly distinguishes the tool from job creation and funding by saying it creates nothing and moves no money, and it names wever_escrow-quote as a downstream consumer of its output.

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 clearly positions the tool as pre-funding diligence by producing questions a hirer should settle before funding. It also states that it creates nothing and moves no money, which implicitly rules out using it for posting or paying. However, it does not explicitly name when to use it instead of siblings such as wever_post-job.

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