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

Goes well past the annotations by declaring no network request, fetch, money movement, message, sharing, configuration change or external write — consistent with readOnlyHint/openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false. It also discloses material operational facts an agent must know: the 0.10 USDC x402 charge on Base, the shared 10 free signed-wallet calls per rolling 30 days, the X-Wever-Wallet-Proof binding to exact JSON arguments and route, and the 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?

Long but front-loaded: purpose, then what the report decides, then the sibling, then verdicts, then endpoint, safety, price and auth. Nearly every sentence carries operational weight; the contract and human-page URLs at the tail are the only mildly expendable content.

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 nested 4-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the return surface adequately by enumerating the four verdicts and stating that the report names unapplied filters and carries a signed receipt. It also covers payment and wallet-proof prerequisites, leaving only minor detail about the report's other fields unspecified.

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?

With 75% schema description coverage the schema already documents most fields, and the description adds real meaning by explaining the roles of the three top-level inputs and how they interact (filters carry when-applied and what-it-reads; the rule carries its default; instruments are what the agent can pay with). It does not unpack the enum values such as rule.kind or applied, leaving those to 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?

States a specific verb and resource — submit an agent's money and rail selection design, covering instruments, named filters with when each is applied and what it reads, and the selection rule with its default. It also states exactly what the returned signed report decides (per-payment filters vs. hardcoded default, plus claimed-but-unapplied filters), which makes the tool's job unmistakable and distinct from its siblings.

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 the alternative case: 'One payment task against money options is wever_money-fit-check,' which tells an agent when to pick the sibling instead. It does not spell out exclusions against the many other wever_* check tools, but the design-level vs. single-payment distinction is clear enough to select correctly.

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