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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by confirming 'Nothing is unlocked' and noting in the schema that the call involves public data only with no connection or signature. These reinforce but don't substantially extend the annotation coverage — a modest but non-redundant contribution.

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 sentences, zero filler. The primary capability is front-loaded and the safety clarification ('Nothing is unlocked') is appended as a concise closing guarantee. Every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with fully documented schema and safety annotations, the description covers what it does and the non-destructive guarantee. The only gap is the absence of any return-value format description, but since no output schema exists and the tool's read nature makes expectations fairly intuitive, this is a minor omission.

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% — the 'address' parameter is already documented as a base58 public key with the clarification that only public data is read and no signature is required. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, so the 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?

The description uses a specific verb+resource pair ('Read the permissioned (Token ACL) tokens a Solana wallet holds') and adds a distinctive capability — identifying which frozen tokens the holder can unlock itself. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like check_token_delegates or check_approvals without needing to open schemas.

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 makes the purpose obvious (checking frozen/permissioned tokens and unlock eligibility) and adds a safety note ('Nothing is unlocked'), which implies a read-only vs. action distinction. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use it relative to siblings like check_token_unlocks or search_tokens, leaving some routing inference to the agent.

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