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

Goes well past the annotations by disclosing the auth scheme (X-Wever-Wallet-Proof bound to the exact JSON arguments and tool route, plus Payment-Signature for paid calls), the full cost model (0.10 USDC per call on Base via x402 exact, shared 10 free signed-wallet calls per rolling 30 days), and that the response carries an Ed25519 signed receipt. That is precisely the extra context annotations cannot convey, even though the read-only hint is already supplied.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and payload contents, then layered auth, pricing, and links; nearly every sentence carries operational weight. It is dense and slightly crowded with URLs and payment mechanics, but nothing is genuinely redundant for an agent that must pay and sign to call 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 one-parameter read tool with read-only annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is returned, how to authenticate, what it costs, what receipt accompanies the result, and where to find the contract. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and interpret the response.

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 the watch_id pattern plus its provenance ('returned by wever_watch-create') are already documented in the schema. The description still adds a real semantic constraint the schema lacks: the watch must be owned by the calling wallet, which determines whether a well-formed id will succeed.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Wever Watch: one watch owned by the calling wallet in detail') and enumerates exactly what is returned: terms, checks run, last observed value and evidence, every fire with signed fire report and callback delivery outcome. The singular 'one watch owned by the calling wallet' implicitly separates it from the sibling list/create/cancel tools without needing to name them.

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 ownership requirement ('owned by the calling wallet') and the id reference back to wever_watch-create give implied context for when this is callable, and the contract/human-page links provide further orientation. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to pick this over wever_watch-list (enumerate) or wever_watch-cancel, nor on what to do when the watch is not found or not owned.

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