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

Annotations only flag destructive/openWorld/non-idempotent, but the description discloses pricing (0.10 USDC x402 exact on Base), the shared 10 free-call allowance, the required X-Wever-Wallet-Proof binding, the 25.00 USDC escrow cap, dispute freeze and refund behavior, and the fact that live acceptance is a manual operator step. That is behaviorally rich context well beyond the structured hints.

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-loads the key eligibility rule, which is good, but the body is a dense run-on of payment rails, state machine, and policy caveats, much of which duplicates material the description itself says lives in /api/workorder-contract.

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 and a complex paid rail, the description covers the payment path, escrow cap, state transitions, dispute/refund behavior, and security constraints, and points to the contract document for schemas and evidence bounds. Return-value expectations remain unstated, but the pointer mitigates most of that.

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 0% and neither required parameter is explained. order_id is only implied by 'funded order', and idempotency_key is never mentioned at all, so the description does not compensate for the documentation gap on a mutation call.

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?

States a specific verb (accept) plus resource (funded order) with the governing constraint (named worker wallet, before deadline). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling mutation tools like wever_workorder-fund, wever_workorder-deliver, and wever_workorder-release.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition for use (order must be funded and within deadline, caller must be the named worker wallet) and redirects to /api/workorder-contract for schemas and bounds. It never names an alternative sibling to use instead when those conditions fail, so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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