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

The description adds real context beyond the annotations: it declares the operation reads only the material in the call with no network request, fetch, money movement, message, or external write, which corroborates readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and it discloses price (0.10 USDC on Base via x402 exact), the 10-free-call quota per 30 days, and the X-Wever-Wallet-Proof binding to the exact JSON arguments. It also states the response is an Ed25519 signed receipt. The only unexplained trait is idempotentHint=false, which matters for a paid call that an agent might retry.

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?

It is front-loaded with the action and the outputs before operational details, and the sentences are dense but purposeful. The trailing contract URL and human page are marginal, and the payment/auth clauses are crammed into one long run of text, but little of the content is redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so: it explains that the report names the fitting option and why, each ruled-out option with the disqualifying property, and every property the material leaves unstated, plus the three verdicts and the signed receipt. For a nested-object, paid, read-only analysis tool, an agent has enough to call it and interpret the result 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 67%, and the description compensates well by naming the semantic field groups on both sides of the call: task side (amount, counterparty type, whether a refund path is required, whether a party other than the payer must carry loss) and option side (kind, reversibility, refund path, redemption, who carries loss, limits, accepted by, fee). It doesn't add format or unit guidance beyond the schema's 'such as 250 USDC', but the meaning of each group is clearer than the bare property names.

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 states a precise verb and resource: submit a payable task plus candidate money options and receive a signed fit-check report. It enumerates the exact inputs (amount, counterparty type, refund path, liability) and outputs (fit_found / fit_unconfirmed / no_option_fits), and it names the adjacent sibling it is not ('Payment rails are wever_payment-rail-check'), so an agent can separate it from the payment-rail and policy-fit tools around it.

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?

The scenario is explicit (an agent has a task it must pay for and a set of candidate money options) and the nearest alternative is redirected to wever_payment-rail-check. What's missing is an explicit when-not boundary, e.g. whether to use this before or after a rail check, or whether it applies to tasks the agent is not itself paying.

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