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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint: true, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context: results are third-party analytics that may be stale, it covers only token approvals (not NFT or Permit2), and each chain consumes a separate billable provider call. No contradiction with annotations; it enriches the safety profile beyond the bare read-only hint.

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 structured with clear sections (purpose, use-when, limitations, alternatives) and is front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence earns its place; no filler. Length is appropriate for the tool's complexity and the need to differentiate from a sibling.

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?

Given an output schema exists (so return format need not be detailed), the description covers the essential aspects: what it inspects, what it returns (discovered spenders, exposure, protocol attribution, flags), limitations (staleness, scope, billable calls), and alternatives. Nothing an agent needs to decide and invoke correctly is missing.

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% with descriptive parameter titles and examples, so the baseline is 3. The description adds usage-level semantics by noting 'Call once per chain' and implying the need for multiple calls for cross-chain screening, which clarifies the chain_id's role. It also frames wallet_address as an EVM address, matching the schema. This modest addition justifies a 4.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Inspect a wallet's current ERC-20 token authorization exposure on one DeBank-supported chain.' It clearly distinguishes from the sibling tool get_token_approvals by stating it is broader than that curated tool. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('when broad spender discovery or cross-chain security screening is needed') and when not to ('Use get_token_approvals for a free, block-accurate Ethereum or Base scan'). It also instructs to call once per chain because DeBank requires a chain_id, covering both usage context and constraints.

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