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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses a great deal: the tool performs terms analysis on supplied records only, retrieves no content, contacts no seller, and makes no network request or external write. It also adds the operational envelope the annotations cannot express — 0.10 USDC per call on Base via x402 with 10 free signed-wallet calls per rolling 30 days, and the requirement to bind X-Wever-Wallet-Proof to the exact JSON arguments. Minor tension: it claims 'no money movement' while also charging per call, which an agent may find ambiguous.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the verdict list is useful, but the block is dense and mixes purpose, output summary, endpoint, payment mechanics, auth binding, contract path and human URL into one run-on paragraph. 'Terms analysis on supplied records; the content is never retrieved and the seller never contacted' restates the earlier submission sentence, and 'Reads only the material in the call' partly duplicates the readOnlyHint annotation.

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 compensates well by describing what the signed report contains (continuation, duration, extension to the human, conditions, proof to retain) and the four possible verdicts. Payment and authentication prerequisites are covered. Only the exact receipt/pagination mechanics are left implicit, which is acceptable given there is no output schema to defer to.

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 50% schema description coverage, the description does real work: it maps to purchase.item, price, purchased_at, payment_reference, buyer, on_behalf_of, terms.text and as_of, explaining the buyer vs. on_behalf_of distinction that matters for the verdict. Undescribed leftovers (label, asset, seller, order_reference, terms.title, terms.effective_date) are self-evident from their names, so the gap is small.

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 action and resource: submit a purchase record plus the seller's access terms and receive a signed report on whether access continues. The verdict vocabulary (access_ended, terms_unclear, access_limited, access_continues) makes the output concrete. It does not name a sibling to differentiate from, even though near-neighbours like wever_terms-evidence-check and wever_service-terms-check exist, so it falls short of a 5.

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 is implied through the enumeration of what to submit ('what was bought, price, date, payment reference, the paying agent and the person it bought for') and the optional 'date to hold the access against'. There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use statement and no routing to alternatives such as the terms-evidence or refund-eligibility siblings, leaving selection to inference.

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