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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description adds real value: the auth requirement and the boundary that "no wallet or signing instructions are returned." That output-content constraint is information annotations cannot carry.

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?

Two tight sentences with the operation front-loaded and no wasted phrasing. The trailing sentence about wallet/signing is short and informative, though slightly tangential to the core purpose.

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 single-parameter read tool whose annotations cover the safety profile, the description gives a good sense of returned state (quote, approval, fulfillment, completion). The only real omission is any explanation of the required intent_id, and there is no output schema to lean on.

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 0% and there is a single undocumented parameter (intent_id with a strict ^pi_[a-f0-9]{64}$ pattern). The description says "your own" but never explains what intent_id is, where it comes from, or its format, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 uses a specific verb ("Read") and enumerates the resource scope precisely: purchase quote, recorded human approval, fulfillment, and completion state. This clearly separates it from create/execute/dispute siblings, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

It states a prerequisite ("Requires the same configured X-Wever-Agent-Key"), which implies an established session, but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance relative to wever_purchase-create-intent or wever_purchase-execute. Usage is left to inference.

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