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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, openWorld=false, destructive=false), and the description still adds substantive behavior: it is a POST to /api/threshold-review-check that performs no network request or external write, it costs 0.10 USDC per call via x402 exact with 10 free signed-wallet calls per rolling 30 days, it requires X-Wever-Wallet-Proof bound to the exact JSON arguments and route, and it returns an Ed25519 signed receipt. The only unaddressed hint is idempotentHint=false — a read-only, payment-gated call whose non-idempotency (repeated paid calls) is implied by the per-call pricing but never stated outright.

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 content is ordered sensibly (input → output → sibling differentiation → verdicts → endpoint → payment → auth → receipt), but the first two sentences are multi-clause run-ons that pack a dozen facts each, and the payment/auth block is a dense telegraphic run. Every element is relevant, yet the delivery makes it harder to scan than it needs to be.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by naming the report's findings and all four verdict values, plus the receipt and contract URL. It covers cost, authentication and read-only scope. What is left thin is the precise shape of the returned report and how verdicts are prioritized when multiple conditions fire.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond field labels by explaining the composite intent of the nested structures — review history as 'each review with its date, who held it, what it decided, the data it looked at and its rationale', and changes as 'a model upgrade, a new merchant, a new task'. It also names acceptable cadence values ('quarterly, 90 days or none'), which the schema does not constrain.

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 opens with a concrete verb and resource ('submit a threshold set as of a date') and enumerates exactly what a threshold record carries (value, set date, owner, cadence, review history). It then explicitly positions itself against the two nearest siblings, wever_escalation-threshold-check and wever_action-threshold-check, so an agent can distinguish the three without opening any 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?

It states the question this tool answers ('whether thresholds are kept current after setup') and then names both alternatives with the condition that selects each ('whether escalation triggers are operable is …', 'whether consequential actions are gated …'). That is explicit when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else guidance.

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