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

Annotations already cover read-only, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, and the description goes well beyond them by stating the safety model (read-and-report tools only, never moves money or changes state), the pricing and free-call allowance, and the exact auth requirements (wallet-proof bound to JSON arguments, Payment-Signature on paid calls). The only gap is that it doesn't say whether results are paginated or capped, which the annotations cannot supply.

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 and returned fields are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by safety, pricing, and auth in a logical order. It is dense but nearly every clause adds information; the contract and human-page URLs are marginally useful and the repeated header/route detail makes the block longer than strictly necessary.

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 only one optional enum parameter and no output schema, the description carries the burden well by enumerating the returned fields and the signed-receipt report format. It stops short of describing result size, pagination, or what an empty list looks like, which are the remaining things an agent would want.

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 100% and the sole parameter is a self-describing enum, so the schema already carries the full meaning. The description only repeats the enum values as returnable states rather than adding semantics such as what happens when the filter is omitted or how multiple states combine, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('list the calling wallet's standing jobs') and immediately enumerates what the listing contains (state, runs completed/failed, last result, next run, digests, routing rules). That detail makes it distinguishable from the sibling schedule-status / schedule-create / schedule-cancel tools without opening any schema.

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 only implied: the optional state filter suggests narrowing by lifecycle stage, and 'standing jobs check and report' hints at when the tool is appropriate. There is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance, and no pointer to wever_schedule-status for single-job lookups, so an agent must infer the boundary with siblings.

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