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

Beyond the readOnly/closed-world annotations it discloses the side-effect boundary explicitly (no page fetch, no account access, no merchant contact, no money movement) and the full cost and auth model: 0.10 USDC per call on Base via x402 exact, 10 free signed-wallet calls per rolling 30 days, and X-Wever-Wallet-Proof bound to both the exact JSON arguments and the route. It also states the return artifact (report with Ed25519 signed receipt), which explains the non-idempotent, paid-per-call trait the annotations only hint at.

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 core behavior, outcome vocabulary and read-only scope are front-loaded in the first three sentences, which is well structured. The tail (contract path, human page URL, payment mechanics) is dense but each element is operationally relevant, though the prose runs long and could be tightened.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description compensates by describing the report contents, the citation behavior, the exact numeric comparison of caps and thresholds, and the signing mechanism. Payment, authentication binding, and the endpoint are all covered, so an agent has everything needed to call this correctly in a paid, wallet-proof context.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both required parameters and the optional amount, currency and policy_label are already documented in the schema, including the fallback rule that the first amount in the action text is used when amount is omitted. The description adds only the parenthetical 'optionally with its amount' and says nothing extra about currency or policy_label, so it sits at the baseline for a fully documented 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource pair: submit a proposed agent action plus a policy text and receive a fit verdict. It goes further by enumerating the exact outcome vocabulary (blocked, needs_condition, needs_detail, fits, not_addressed), so an agent knows precisely what it will get back and can distinguish this from evidence-check or mandate-draft 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?

Usage context is clear from the opening sentence: this is for checking whether a concrete proposed action fits a given policy or mandate, and the description notes it reads only the material in the call. However, no sibling is named as an alternative or exclusion, so an agent must infer on its own how this differs from wever_claim-evidence-check, wever_terms-evidence-check, or wever_mandate-draft.

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