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

Goes well past the annotations by disclosing that only call-supplied material is read, no network/fetch/money movement/write occurs, and that an Ed25519-signed receipt is returned. It also surfaces paid-access mechanics (0.10 USDC x402 on Base, 10 free signed-wallet calls per 30 days) and the X-Wever-Wallet-Proof binding requirement, which an agent must satisfy to call successfully.

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?

Purpose and the sibling disambiguation are front-loaded, which is good. However, the description also carries pricing, wallet-proof binding, endpoint path, contract link and human page URL, which dilute the core selection signal and lengthen it considerably.

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 nested 2-parameter analysis tool with no output schema, it explains the report contents (per-path findings, protected vs unprotected, smallest fix) and the three verdicts. Only minor gaps remain, such as report size or how paths are identified in the output.

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 schema already documents path fields such as timeout, retry_on, idempotency scope and duplicate-detection window. The description enumerates the same fields in prose and adds intent (what is assessed) but no format or validation detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 a payment/refund flow's retry design as paths and receive a signed report naming paths where retries can double-charge. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from wever_duplicate-order-check (live order records vs design review).

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?

Says 'Design review of the supplied material; live order records are wever_duplicate-order-check,' giving one clear routing rule to an alternative. It stops short of mapping to the broader family of payment checks (payment-recovery-check, refund-eligibility-check), so an agent must infer those boundaries.

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