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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint. The description goes beyond these by explaining that 'revoking returns no SOL' and 'Nothing is revoked', adding context about the financial irrelevance and the absence of side effects. This aligns with and enriches the annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise and effective: two sentences with no redundancy. The core action and target are front-loaded, and the clarifying 'risk read' and 'Nothing is revoked' follow logically. 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 tool with comprehensive annotations, the description is adequately complete. It conveys the tool's purpose, its read-only nature, and the fact that no financial transaction occurs. The output is implied as a list, but explicit format details are omitted; this is acceptable given the simplicity and lack of an output schema.

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 fully describes the 'address' parameter, including that it is a base58 public key and that public data is used. The description does not add additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline 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 states a specific verb ('List') and a precise resource ('standing token delegates and approvals on a Solana wallet'), further clarifying the meaning as 'programs still allowed to move its tokens'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_approvals by focusing on standing delegates rather than just checking approvals.

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 that this is a risk read ('A risk read, not money') and that it does not have financial effects, helping the agent understand when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, which is a minor gap given the similar sibling check_approvals.

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