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

The description discloses important behavioral traits beyond the annotations: it reports only what has happened, does not infer capability from absence of records, explicitly states that capability inspection is not published, and discloses no wallets. These details prevent misinterpretation of absence-of-records as inability-to-freeze and clarify privacy boundaries. No contradiction with the readOnly, idempotent, or destructive 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?

The description is information-dense and front-loaded, with three sentences covering scope, content, and limitations. There is minor redundancy ('Reports what has happened, dated' partly restates the earlier record of usage with dates), but the structure is clear and each clause carries useful information.

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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the output content: restriction types, event signature, count, and first/latest dates. It also covers the all-coins case and key limitations. It does not specify the exact response shape, but it provides enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage of the single optional parameter token, including examples and the 'omit for every coin' instruction. The description's phrase 'For a given coin' adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already says, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 description clearly states what the tool reports: the record of actual restriction controls used (blacklisting, freezing, taking a balance, lifting a restriction) for a given coin, with event signature, count, and first/latest dates. It also differentiates itself from capability inspection by explicitly stating it does not report what a contract is capable of, which helps distinguish it from related sibling tools.

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 provides clear context: use this tool to see dated, actual usage of restriction controls, with the schema hint that omitting token returns all coins. It also gives exclusions—it does not report contract capabilities and discloses no wallets—so an agent knows not to use it for those purposes. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide precise when-to-use versus when-not-to-use routing.

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