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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description reinforces this with a concrete negative list (no network fetch, money movement, message, sharing, configuration change or external write), which tells the agent exactly what side effects will not occur. It goes further than the structured fields by disclosing the paid endpoint (0.10 USDC via x402 exact with 10 free signed-wallet calls per 30 days), the X-Wever-Wallet-Proof binding requirement, 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 required inputs are front-loaded, and the sentence sequence (inputs, what the brief computes, sibling routing, verdicts, endpoint, safety, price, auth, return) is scannable. It is dense and carries some boilerplate (contract path, human page URL) that adds little for an agent mid-invocation, but nothing is genuinely 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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the four possible verdicts and stating that the response is a report with an Ed25519 signed receipt. Combined with the payment/auth prerequisites and side-effect disclosure, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly for a five-parameter, nested-array tool.

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 interpretation by grouping the inputs: items carry outcome, agent, owner and owner type 'where known', people carry per-person load limits, and there is a stated load limit per owner. That framing explains how the fields feed the overload verdict rather than merely restating 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 opens with a specific verb and resource (submit work items handed to agents and produce a signed ownership brief) and enumerates what the brief computes: accountable person per outcome, unowned items, agent/group-owned items, and overloaded owners. It also names the sibling it is not (a supplied handover package goes to wever_handover-check), so the agent can separate it from related tools without opening schemas.

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?

Usage context is clear: call it when handing work items to agents and you need an accountable-person map with verdicts. The explicit sibling routing to wever_handover-check covers the main near-miss case, but no other alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions are given for the many adjacent oversight tools.

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