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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the 0.10 USDC x402 charge on Base, the 10 free signed-wallet calls per 30 days, required headers (X-Wever-Wallet-Proof binding exact JSON args and path, X-Wever-Connect-Token), and the exact idempotency/caching semantics of request_id replay returning the original billed result.

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 action and payment/auth constraints are front-loaded and most sentences carry real information. Two trailing sentences ('Matching uses only the humans' stated criteria' and 'Stakes use the existing /first-dates/ flow') are peripheral, and the opening sentence is slightly overloaded, keeping it just under 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 paid, stateful, side-effecting tool with no output schema, the description covers auth, cost, idempotency, recovery, and where the human decision happens. The main gap is that the response payload (what 'recorded decisions' or the delivered result looks like) is only loosely characterized, which matters for an agent that must branch on the outcome.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains request_id generation vs replay thoroughly and implies what decision triggers, but the enum value 'review' (as opposed to approve/decline) is never explained, and intro_id's format/derivation is left entirely to the schema pattern.

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 chain: request a human approve/decline decision on an introduction, read the recorded decisions, and deliver the intro as mailbox tasks once both approve. It is clearly distinct from the sibling wever_matchmaking-propose-intro (which creates the intro) and matches the 'approve-or-decline-intro' name exactly.

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 gives concrete operating rules: use a new request_id to refresh decisions or recover interrupted delivery, and replay the same request_id to retrieve the original billed result. It also points to /api/matchmaking-contract for setup and recovery. It stops short of explicitly naming the upstream sibling to call first, so 4 rather than 5.

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