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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, non-idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses the fetch behavior (one GET, no redirects, 512 KB cap), the cost model (0.10 USDC per call on Base via x402 exact), a free tier of 10 signed-wallet calls per rolling 30 days, and the authentication requirement (X-Wever-Wallet-Proof bound to the exact JSON arguments and route). It also states the return artifact is an Ed25519 signed receipt, which 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 description is front-loaded with the core action and output, then layers limits, pricing, auth and links in a logical order with no filler. It is dense and slightly run-on (pricing, wallet-proof, contract and human-page links packed into one block), but nearly every clause carries operational value.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description fully characterizes the return value (presence/missing verdicts per clause, match counts, heading lines, up to three quotes with offsets, signed receipt). Combined with the disclosed cost, free quota, auth binding and size/redirect limits, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 url/text oneOf, the HTTPS pattern and the 512 KB limit are already documented in the schema. The description largely restates those constraints ('a public HTTPS url, read once with GET', 'up to 512 KB') without adding syntax or format meaning the schema lacks; baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('read a terms or policy page ... or supplied text') and names the concrete output ('signed report on whether fee, refund, cancellation and ownership clauses are present or missing'). It is immediately clear what the tool does, but it never explicitly distinguishes itself from close siblings such as wever_data-evidence-check, wever_invoice-check or wever_listing-check, leaving routing ambiguity.

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?

Usage is only implied by the 'DiligenceOps' framing and the domain of terms/policy pages; there is no explicit statement of when to pick this tool over the sibling evidence-check or invoice-check tools, and no when-not-to-use guidance. The input constraint (public HTTPS URL or supplied text of up to 512 KB) does implicitly scope applicable cases.

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