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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: output is event signature + count + first/most recent dates, absence of records does not imply incapability, and no wallets are disclosed (a privacy boundary). That last point is genuinely informative for an agent deciding on disclosure.

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 core purpose, but the middle clause is repetitive — 'does not report what a contract is capable of: contract capability inspection is not published yet, and this tool says so rather than inferring that a coin cannot freeze from an absence of records' restates the same caveat three ways in one sentence.

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?

Single optional parameter, no output schema, read-only tool: the description supplies the return content (event name, count, date range) and the key semantic caveat about absence of records, which is what an agent needs. The main omission is any explicit pointer to sibling tools for adjacent questions.

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 single token parameter is fully documented in the schema (ticker examples, multi-issuer collision behavior, omit-for-all). The description adds only 'for a given coin', which duplicates the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 resource and verb-like framing: per-coin record of restriction controls the issuer has actually used (blacklisting, freezing, balance-taking, lifting), plus the returned fields. It implicitly separates itself from list_freeze_events by scoping to per-issuer usage, but never names a sibling tool, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'Reports what has happened, dated' tells the agent this is a historical-usage lookup, and 'contract capability inspection is not published yet' warns of a common misuse. But no alternative tool (e.g. list_freeze_events or get_address_status) is named for related questions, so the agent must infer routing.

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