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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds genuinely useful traits: data is 'live', sourced from the external GoPlus Security API, and returns a tri-state plain-language verdict. However, it omits the implications of that external dependency — rate limits, failure/error behavior, or how a wallet with no approvals is reported.

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?

A single ~25-word sentence with zero filler: action, resource, service, and output format are all front-loaded. Every clause earns its place, and nothing is repeated from the title or schema.

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 3-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description covers the core picture, and naming the SAFE/CAUTION/RISK verdict partially compensates for the missing output schema. It is incomplete on sibling routing and external-API failure behavior, and it doesn't describe edge cases like a wallet with zero approvals.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented: kind and chain have enums with defaults, and address has a regex pattern plus example. The description adds only the EVM framing and the token/NFT distinction, providing no per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema already gives.

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 ('Check'), a concrete resource ('an EVM wallet's live token/NFT approvals'), a named method ('via GoPlus Security'), and an explicit output contract (SAFE, CAUTION, or RISK verdict with explanation). This clearly differentiates from the sibling explain_approval — checking versus explaining.

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 implies its context — use it when an agent needs a wallet-approval safety assessment — but it never states when to prefer this over the sibling explain_approval, nor any exclusion conditions. Routing between check and explain is left to inference from the tool names.

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