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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the tool reads only the material in the call: no page fetch, no registry or chain lookup, no counterparty contact, and no payment signed, submitted or moved. It also adds payment, free-call, wallet-proof and signed-receipt behavior, which is unusually complete for a read-only preflight tool.

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 text is dense with useful operational detail. It is somewhat long as a single paragraph and buries payment and proof-binding instructions mid-paragraph, but the length is largely justified by the tool's complexity.

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 complex paid, read-only preflight tool with no output schema, the description covers inputs, expected report contents, signed receipt, safety boundaries, pricing, wallet proof and contract reference. An agent would have enough information to call it correctly and understand what the result represents.

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 parameter meanings are already fully documented in the input schema. The description lists the field names and says text, fields or both, but it does not add syntax or interpretation beyond what the schema already provides; this meets the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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 specific verb and resource: check your own agent spending policy before the agent runs under it, including controls such as caps, assets, networks, recipients and kill switch. It is much clearer than a generic policy check, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like wever_payment-policy-check or wever_policy-fit-check.

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?

The timing context is clear: use it as a preflight check before the agent runs under the stated policy, and provide text, fields or both. It does not give explicit exclusions or route the caller to alternative tools, so the guidance is strong but not complete.

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