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

Annotations already declare a read-only, non-destructive, closed-world profile, and the description adds substantial context on top: no network request, fetch, money movement, message, sharing, configuration change or external write. It also discloses the paid path (0.10 USDC per call on Base via x402 exact, 10 signed-wallet free calls per rolling 30 days), the X-Wever-Wallet-Proof binding requirement, and that the result carries an Ed25519 signed receipt — none of which is derivable from annotations.

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?

Every sentence carries information, but the first sentence is a long run-on with nested parentheticals that buries the core action, and the payment/auth/contract URLs crowd the tail. The key routing sentence to siblings is well placed, yet the overall shape is a dense block rather than front-loaded structure.

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 3-parameter read-only analysis tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, alternatives, verdict enumeration, payment, authentication binding and receipt format. An agent has everything needed to decide to call it and to construct the call correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds conceptual meaning beyond field-level docs: limits each pair an amount with what it applies to (everything, one agent, named tasks, named merchants/counterparties, or both), and work entries each pair a job with its merchant, a typical amount and its largest legitimate amount. That framing explains how the two arrays interact, which the schema alone does not.

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 a limit set plus the work it governs, then return a signed report finding the most specific limit per job and flagging scope misfits. It enumerates the exact findings (over-cap-by-tenfold, routine amount over cap, ungoverned jobs, one undifferentiated cap) and names the verdict values, so an agent knows precisely what it gets back and how it differs from neighboring checks.

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 routes explicitly to alternatives with the condition that selects each: 'whether each cap states its scope, window and breach rule is wever_exposure-cap-check', 'what happens to work above a limit is wever_breach-path-check', and 'whether a spending policy states its caps is wever_spending-policy-check'. The scope of this tool ('reads whether the scoping fits the work') is stated positively as well, leaving no ambiguity about which sibling to pick.

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