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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses the input scope limit (nothing fetched or contacted), the exact paid mechanics (0.10 USDC per call on Base via x402 exact, shared 10 signed-wallet free calls per rolling 30 days), the auth requirement (bind X-Wever-Wallet-Proof to the exact JSON arguments and route), and the return artifact (report with Ed25519 signed receipt). Annotations cover safety only, so this added cost/auth/scope context is genuinely valuable.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and dense throughout, with no filler sentences. It loses a point for redundancy: the comparison dimensions (price, term, service levels, security, data terms, liability, renewal, support) are enumerated twice in consecutive sentences, and the payment/auth tail adds bulk that 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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so: it describes the normalized comparison, the evidence-gap naming, the recommendation plus rationale and change conditions, the verdict enum, and the signed receipt. Combined with the disclosed cost and auth requirements, an agent has everything needed to call this 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 description coverage is 75%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds real meaning: proposals may be supplied 'as fields ... or text', clarifying that the free-text field substitutes for the structured fields rather than supplementing them, and it flags priorities and budget as optional. It otherwise repeats field names the schema already lists, so it does not fully earn a 5.

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 verb and resource ('submit two to six vendor proposals' → 'signed brief normalizes the comparison'), names the exact dimensions compared, and pins the output shape ('closes with a recommendation, its rationale and the conditions that would change it. Verdict recommended or not_comparable'). That level of detail makes it clearly distinguishable from nearby siblings such as wever_quote-compare or wever_fair-value-brief without needing to name them.

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?

Gives clear triggering context: you need this when you hold two to six vendor proposals and want a normalized comparison with a recommendation. It also states hard boundaries ('reads only the material in the call: no page fetch, no account access, no counterparty contact'). It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating when NOT to use it, which keeps it at 4.

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