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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses the single-GET fetch behavior, redirect and public-DNS restrictions, size cap, lack of account or merchant access, URL pricing, free-call quota, wallet-proof binding, and Ed25519-signed receipt. These details expose important network, cost, authentication, and semantic-limit behavior while remaining consistent with the read-only, open-world, non-destructive annotations.

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 report contents are front-loaded, and most of the dense sentences contain useful operational facts. The single long paragraph, repeated URL-retrieval and signing details, and several endpoint or reference additions prevent it from being maximally concise.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the definition describes the report's contents and signature as well as accepted inputs, network behavior, pricing, quota, authentication binding, and the non-interpretive matching limitation. This is enough to invoke and interpret the tool correctly, aside from the minor awkwardness of 'between the submitted texts' for a one-source input schema.

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 already documents the text/url choice, accepted formats, retrieval limits, label, and format default. The description mostly repeats that information, adding only limited new parameter-relevant context such as public-DNS-only fetching and URL-specific pricing, so the high-coverage baseline remains 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?

The description clearly identifies the resource—a status page supplied as text or a public HTTPS URL—and concrete outputs covering uptime windows, incidents, maintenance, and the most recent entry. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from overlapping siblings such as wever_sla-evidence-check or other evidence-check tools.

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?

It establishes a clear use case for status-page evidence extraction and cautions that the report only matches words, figures, dates, and named items rather than interpreting their meaning. It does not name alternatives or explain when an SLA, claim, or another evidence-check sibling would be preferable.

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