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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint true, destructiveHint false, openWorldHint false), yet the description adds genuinely useful operational facts: per-call price of 0.10 USDC via x402, ten free signed-wallet calls per rolling 30 days, the X-Wever-Wallet-Proof header bound to the exact JSON arguments, and an Ed25519 signed receipt in the return. That is real value beyond structured fields; only the boilerplate reuse across the Wever family keeps it from a 5.

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 lead sentence is well front-loaded and does the real work. The remainder is a dense block of payment, header, receipt, contract, and human-page boilerplate whose sentences are individually long but at least grouped logically; trimming to the tool-specific parts would improve it.

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 read-only single-filter list tool with no output schema, the description covers return shape (state, checks run, last observation, fire count, signed receipt), auth requirements, and cost. That is close to everything an agent needs; only the listing-vs-status routing against siblings is left unstated.

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?

There is a single optional parameter with 100% schema coverage and an enumerated value set, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description restates the state names and marks the filter optional but adds no new meaning such as default behavior when omitted or how multiple states could be combined.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource ('list the calling wallet's watches') and enumerates the returned fields, which separates it from wever_watch-status and wever_watch-create. It stops short of naming those siblings, so an agent must infer the listing-vs-single-watch split rather than being told.

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 description gives the enumeration context (state filter, preset state values), which implies when the tool is useful. But it never says when to prefer this over wever_watch-status, nor whether the filter is meant for polling, reconciliation, or cleanup discovery, leaving the choice to inference.

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