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

Goes well beyond the annotations, which only declare read-only, closed-world, non-destructive, non-idempotent: it states the operation reads only the material in the call (no page fetch, no registry or chain lookup, no counterparty contact, no payment moved), discloses the 0.10 USDC x402 price with 10 free signed-wallet calls per rolling 30 days, requires an X-Wever-Wallet-Proof bound to the exact JSON arguments and route, and notes an Ed25519 signed receipt. The only gap is that it does not explain why idempotentHint is false despite being a read-only check, which an agent might otherwise expect to be safely retryable.

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 alternative are front-loaded, then constraints, then pricing and auth. It is dense but nearly every clause carries operational value (pricing, proof binding, no-payment guarantee, contract and human-page links). The flag enumeration is long but functions as the tool's output promise, so it earns its space.

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, authenticated, read-only inspection tool with a nested-object schema and no output schema, the description covers what is read, what is never touched, how payment and wallet proof work, and what the returned signed report contains. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly or predict the result is missing.

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 a 3. The description lists the field topics and explains the purpose of `exposure` (so the liability cap can be compared against what the service can move or charge), which adds a little intent beyond the schema, but the precedence rule for fields over text and the html/text format defaulting are already fully documented in the schema.

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 concrete verb and resource: read a service's terms from the paying side, restate each term plainly, and flag the one-sided and missing ones, with a parenthetical enumeration of exactly what gets flagged. It also names the sibling it is not (wever_terms-evidence-check) and the route it posts to, so an agent can distinguish it from the many other wever checks without opening a 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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('before it commits' / 'about to start paying for') and an explicit alternative with its own condition ('To verify what a counterparty's published terms say, use wever_terms-evidence-check'). The pre-commit timing makes the when-to-use unambiguous and the exclusion is stated rather than inferred.

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