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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description still adds real value by asserting 'OCD never executes the transaction' and by naming the three independent checks it performs, which tells the agent this is a passive verification with no side effects on-chain.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler; the inputs are front-loaded and the non-execution guarantee is placed last where it reads as a boundary statement. Domain jargon ('OCD', 'canonical-USDC', 'safe-head finality') is left undefined, which costs a little clarity but not length.

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 two-parameter, read-only inspection tool with no output schema and open-world reads, the description covers what is checked but not what a caller gets back or how failure/absent-finality is surfaced. It is adequate but leaves the agent guessing about return shape and the source of the required artifact.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It partially does: 'artifact' is characterized as a signed OCD allowance preflight artifact and 'transaction_hash' as a submitted Base transaction hash. It never explains how to obtain the artifact, hash format, or whether the artifact is optional in practice.

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 (inspect) and enumerates exactly what is inspected: the canonical-USDC Approval event, Base safe-head finality, and historical allowance state. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the preflight tools by operating on an already-submitted transaction, but never names the close sibling inspect_allowance to remove the ambiguity.

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 opening clause establishes the operating context precisely: it runs given a signed OCD allowance preflight artifact plus a submitted Base transaction hash, i.e. post-submission rather than before it. No exclusions or explicit 'use X instead' routing against inspect_allowance or the preflight siblings is offered.

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