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

Goes well beyond the supplied annotations: it states the operation reads only the material in the call, lists what it will not do (no network request, fetch, money movement, message, sharing, configuration change or external write), and discloses cost and limits — 0.10 USDC per call on Base via x402 exact with 10 free signed-wallet calls per rolling 30 days. It also gives the auth requirement (bind X-Wever-Wallet-Proof to the exact JSON arguments and route) and the return artifact (report with 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?

Information-dense and largely front-loaded: what to submit, what the report says, how it differs from the readiness check, then operational terms. Some material is verbose — the enumerated no-op list and the trailing contract/human-page URLs — but nothing is truly redundant for a paid, governed operation.

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 complex nested-object tool with no output schema, the description covers the verdict space, the signed-receipt return, the read-only behavior, auth binding, and pricing. Remaining gaps are minor, such as how partial 'original'/'proposed' objects (minProperties 1) are compared or what happens when consent coverage is incomplete, but the schema plus description is enough to invoke it confidently.

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 71%, so the schema carries most of the burden, but the description adds real meaning by grouping the inputs into their roles — original configuration fields (destination, network, asset, fee rate, fixed fee, caps, scope), approval record, agreement change rules, proposed change, consent record. It also explains the interpretation of a change in domain terms ('new destination or payout route, higher fee, wider scope'), which the schema alone does not spell out.

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 action on a specific resource: submit an original payout/fee configuration plus approval record, the agreement's change rules, a proposed change and consent, and receive a signed verdict. It also enumerates the three possible verdicts (outside_agreement, counterparty_approval_required, can_take_effect), so an agent knows exactly what the tool produces and can separate it from adjacent payout checks.

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 a neighboring need elsewhere: 'payout readiness for a single payment is wever_payout-readiness-check,' which is a genuine alternative-selection hint. It also frames the tool as configuration-change governance 'change by change.' It stops short of naming when not to use it against other siblings (e.g. wever_terms-change-check), so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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