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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: results are risk-ranked and specific classes of findings (unlimited allowances, expired permits, flagged spenders) are called out, and it explicitly states nothing is revoked.

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 verb and resource, and the opening sentence carries most of the meaning efficiently. The trailing clarification is slightly redundant ('revoking returns nothing' and 'Nothing is revoked' say nearly the same thing), a minor waste.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey what comes back, and it does: a risk-ranked list with specific flag categories. Combined with annotations covering the read-only profile and a fully documented two-param schema, an agent has everything needed to call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with only two parameters, so the schema already documents 'chain' (single-chain, omittable) and the public 'address'. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, which is the correct baseline when the schema does the work.

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 (list) and resource (standing token approvals on an EVM wallet), plus the scope of what is surfaced: unlimited allowances, expired permits, flagged spenders, ranked by risk. The 'EVM wallet' qualifier clearly separates it from the Solana-flavored siblings (check_frozen_tokens, check_reclaimable_rent, etc.).

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 framing 'A risk read, not money: revoking returns nothing. Nothing is revoked.' sets expectations and rules out a revocation use case, which is useful implied guidance. However, it never names an alternative tool or states conditions for choosing this over a sibling like check_wallet, so routing remains inferred.

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