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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: no network request, fetch, money movement, message, sharing, configuration change or external write, which is consistent with readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. It also discloses cost (0.10 USDC on Base via x402 exact), the 10 free signed-wallet calls per rolling 30 days, the X-Wever-Wallet-Proof binding to the exact JSON arguments and route, and 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 and routing are front-loaded, but the opening sentences are long run-ons that re-enumerate the enforced_at and limit-kind vocabularies already present in the schema. The duplicated enumeration and the trailing contract/URL/page metadata add length without adding decision-relevant information.

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 read-only analysis endpoint with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers invocation, payment and auth mechanics, the return shape (signed report plus receipt), the verdict space, and pointers to the contract and human page. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly 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 interpretive meaning: it explains the limit kinds (per payment, per period, per counterparty, total budget, action count, rate, forbidden action class), the counter values, and the significance of agent_can_change and on_failure in terms of walls versus suggestions. This is meaning beyond the field-level descriptions, though it largely restates the enum members.

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 action and resource: submit an agent's numeric and action ceilings and receive a signed report sorting each into a wall the agent cannot move or a suggestion it can exceed. It also names the verdict set (limits_are_suggestions, walls_with_gaps, substrate_unverified, limits_enforced_outside_agent), which pins down exactly what the tool produces.

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?

Explicitly routes three sibling tools by scope: model-dependent permissions go to wever_enforcement-layer-check, budget control existence to wever_budget-controls-check, and spending-policy caps to wever_spending-policy-check. It does not state when-not to use it or how it differs from the other limit-* siblings, so it stops short of a full 5.

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