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

Beyond readOnlyHint/destructiveHint=false, the description discloses that the call reads only the supplied material (no page fetch, no account access, no merchant contact, no money movement), that it costs 0.10 USDC per call on Base via x402 exact with 10 free signed-wallet calls per 30 days, and that an X-Wever-Wallet-Proof header must be bound to the exact JSON arguments and route. Pricing, auth mechanics and side-effect boundaries are precisely the behavioral facts annotations cannot express.

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 description is front-loaded with purpose and output semantics, then safety, then payment and contract references in a logical order. It is dense but nearly every sentence carries operational weight; the DiligenceOps prefix and the trailing contract/human-page URLs are the only mild padding.

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 paid, non-idempotent compute tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (a report with an Ed25519 signed receipt), the payment model, the required wallet-proof binding, and the absence of side effects. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and understand the cost and trust properties.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds conceptual meaning on top: it enumerates the quote facets that matter (price, fees, tax, inclusions/exclusions, cancellation and refund terms, timing, validity) and explains how mandatory versus optional fees feed the total versus the like-for-like total. It does not explain the optional top-level 'subject' or the fallback 'currency' field, keeping it just shy of 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('submit two to 20 provider quotes for the same job, trip leg or purchase') and then spells out exactly what the comparison produces (totals, deltas to lowest, like-for-like total, term differences, missing terms). That level of detail separates it cleanly from the other compare-style siblings such as wever_atlas-compare and wever_thesis-compare.

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?

The usage envelope is stated, namely two to 20 quotes for the same job, trip leg or purchase, with the absence of page fetches or account access, which tells the agent what input it must assemble itself. It never names an alternative sibling or a when-not-to-use condition, so the agent has to infer routing from the description alone.

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