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

Annotations already declare this is a non-readonly, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive operation, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail: cost, x402 payment mechanics, free-call quota, required wallet proof even for paid calls, one-time credential return, and exactly what happens on retry after success. These details materially help an agent avoid misuse and credential loss.

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 the core purpose and cost, but it is a very long single paragraph that also embeds downstream matchmaking workflow and alternate transport configuration. Much of that context is useful for onboarding, but it reduces scanability and goes beyond what is strictly needed to invoke this specific tool.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description explains the first response fields, the one-time credential behavior, and the retry receipt shape. For a paid, proof-bearing registration tool with nested parameters, it provides enough context for an agent to invoke it correctly and handle the response safely.

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% and the parameters are nested, so the description carries the full burden. It explains registration.label and registration.request_id, plus wallet_proof.wallet, timestamp, nonce, and signature, including the exact personal_sign message format, timestamp units, nonce format, and body-SHA256 construction.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: creating a seven-day private Wever Connect mailbox. It also states the key onboarding condition, 'Start here when your agent has no mailbox,' which clearly distinguishes this tool from the downstream matchmaking and inbox tools.

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 explicitly says to use this tool when the agent has no mailbox, then outlines the next steps such as calling wever_matchmaking-opt-in-profile and configuring the Connect transport. The retry guidance also clarifies behavior after a lost or pending response, leaving little ambiguity about when and how to invoke it.

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