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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add real value: it discloses the cost ($0.005) and the important coverage limit (only 8 tokens, only common spenders), which tells the agent results can be incomplete. However it never states read-only/no-side-effects, latency, or how the 'unlimited' flag is surfaced in the response.

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?

One front-loaded sentence naming the resource first, then scope, then behavior, then price — all content earns its place. Slightly dense with parentheticals and an ellipsized list, but well within a reasonable size.

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?

No annotations and no output schema, so the description should explain what comes back. It covers what is checked and the cost, but not the shape of the result (per token-spender pairs? a list of flagged approvals? a boolean?). For a security-check tool with no output schema, that is a meaningful gap.

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 required parameter 'address' with 0% schema description coverage, but the description's phrase 'a Arbitrum wallet's' makes its meaning obvious. Nothing is said about chain scoping assumptions or whether checksummed/lowercase addresses are accepted (the regex covers format only), so it neither fully compensates nor misleads.

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 and resource ('Check a Arbitrum wallet's ERC-20 approvals') with the exact scope (8 major tokens, named spenders) and the key output behavior (flags unlimited approvals). An agent can tell it apart from arbitrum_address_inspect or wallet_report, and from the identically-shaped other-chain siblings, 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?

The enumerated token/spender coverage hints at the security-audit use case, and it implicitly excludes non-listed tokens/spenders. But there is no explicit when-to-use, no alternative named (e.g. use address_inspect for balance history, token_approvals per-chain for other networks), and no prerequisites. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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