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

Goes well past the annotations: it discloses that reads touch only call material with no network request, money movement, message, sharing or configuration change, and adds pricing (0.10 USDC via x402 exact plus 10 signed-wallet free calls per 30 days), the required X-Wever-Wallet-Proof binding to the exact JSON arguments and route, the POST endpoint, and the Ed25519 signed receipt in the response. That is real operational context an agent cannot infer from readOnlyHint/openWorldHint alone.

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?

A single run-on sentence spanning most of the description tries to carry the flow definition, and the long enumeration of 'every view never checked, checked only after new work, trusted over the record, no hold on new work...' duplicates the enum values already in the schema. Pricing, auth binding and endpoint appear after the wall of text, so important call mechanics are not front-loaded.

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, signed, single-purpose POST tool with no output schema, the description still tells the agent what the report proves, the four possible verdicts, the contract path and the human page. Nothing needed to call it or interpret the result is absent.

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 3. The description's parameter prose (state plus the record checked against, when reconciliation happens, what happens on mismatch, whether new work waits, optional runs) largely restates the schema field descriptions rather than adding new meaning, though it does frame them as one coherent flow.

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 recovery flow" for state reconciliation after an interruption) and enumerates the verdicts it returns. It explicitly separates itself from wever_settlement-reconciliation-check, wever_cache-staleness-check and wever_partial-state-check by describing the distinct object each one reads, so an agent can pick correctly without opening schemas.

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 routing sentence names three alternatives and the exact condition that selects each (settlements vs transferred funds, cache that outlives a change, an interrupted task's reported state). What is missing is a stated agent-workflow trigger and any negative case beyond 'use the sibling instead', so it falls short of full when/when-not coverage.

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