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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description adds substantial context: it explicitly states nothing leaves the call (no network request, fetch, money movement, message, sharing, configuration change, or external write), discloses the price of 0.10 USDC per call on Base via x402 exact with 10 free signed-wallet calls per rolling 30 days, and specifies the X-Wever-Wallet-Proof binding to the exact JSON arguments and route. It also names the verdict enumerations and the Ed25519 signed receipt in the return. All of this is consistent with the read-only annotations rather than contradicted by them.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the report semantics come before the operational metadata. The prose is dense and relies on long compound clauses, and endpoint/contract/human-page URLs sit at the end where they are less useful, but every block (what it does, what it returns, safety, payment, auth) earns its place for a paid tool.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully compensates by enumerating the verdict values, the factor classes, the mismatch/unused-criteria outputs, and the signed-receipt return. Combined with the read-only guarantee, the x402 pricing, and the wallet-proof binding requirement, an agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly on the first try.

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 coverage is 75%, so the schema carries most of the burden, but the description adds genuine meaning: it defines what the flow steps represent (each step with the factors it applies and what it does) and the relationship being tested between stated criteria and actual flow factors. It also previews what the disclosure booleans lead to (whether a buyer or seller can tell why a seller was chosen). The optional 'label' parameter is still only described in the schema, not the description.

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 states a concrete verb and resource: submit a router's stated ranking/routing criteria plus its described decision flow and receive a signed report on whether the criteria match the flow. It spells out the report contents (why-chosen transparency, undisclosed factors classified as paid placement/self-preference/inventory pressure/margin/other, unused stated criteria) and the verdict set. It does not distinguish itself from near siblings such as wever_ai-disclosure-check or wever_recommendation-disclosure-check, so it falls short of a 5.

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 is implied by the required inputs (you must have a stated criteria list and a described decision flow), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no named alternative for the adjacent disclosure-check tools. An agent can infer the scenario but must guess whether this or recommendation-disclosure-check is the right call.

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