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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint true, openWorldHint false, destructiveHint false), and the description adds materially beyond them: the closed-world read constraint, that no money moves, the x402 pricing (0.10 USDC on Base, 10 signed-wallet free calls per rolling 30 days), the X-Wever-Wallet-Proof binding to exact JSON arguments and route, and the Ed25519 signed receipt. It also enumerates the possible verdicts (rules_broken, patterns_found, rules_unconfirmed, no_flags), which is the kind of behavioral detail annotations cannot convey.

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 core purpose is front-loaded, and every clause is substantive rather than filler. However, it is delivered as one dense run-on sentence followed by fragment-style operational notes (POST path, pricing, contract path, human page), which makes it slow to parse at the exact moment an agent needs to decide whether to call it.

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 tool with no output schema, nested objects and a paid/auth layer, the description covers what matters: inputs to supply, what the report flags and how each flag is labeled, the verdict set, the payment and wallet-proof requirements, and where the contract lives. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly 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% and nested rule objects are fully documented with field-level descriptions, so the schema does the heavy lifting; baseline is 3. The description does add conceptual meaning by mapping the rule families (per-transaction cap, per-counterparty/per-category caps per day/week/month/total, allowed counterparties/categories), but it never mentions duplicate_window_minutes or the interplay between the top-level asset default and per-transaction asset.

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 transaction list plus stated budget rules and receive a signed anomaly report. It enumerates the exact detection categories (rule breaks, duplicate-looking payments, within-set outliers) and explicitly names the sibling it is not ('Live wallet activity is wever_wallet-statement'), so an agent can distinguish it from the surrounding treasury tools 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 clear when-to-use context (you have a transaction set and stated budget rules) and a when-not boundary ('Reads only the material in the call: no wallet, chain, market, bank or counterparty lookup'), plus a named alternative for live wallet data. It falls short of 5 because it never contrasts with adjacent policy siblings such as wever_spending-policy-check or wever_agent-budget-guard, leaving the agent to infer which treasury check to pick.

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