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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, yet the description adds substantial depth: the event-scan methodology, eth_call re-checks against current state, the fact that zeroed/revoked approvals are counted but not listed unless include_inactive=true, risk-flag semantics, severity scoring rules, and the exact revoke call to feed into build_unsigned_tx. It also warns that token symbols and spender names are untrusted.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a structured 'How' and a benefits/risk breakdown. The prose is dense and long but nearly every clause carries operational information; it is not padded, though it could be tightened slightly.

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 carry return-value burden, and it does: it enumerates the fields of each active approval, the risk flags, severity levels, and the revoke call. Nothing an agent needs to invoke or interpret the tool 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?

With 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: from_block is scanned 'in ranges of the server's log range limit', and include_inactive not only lists inactive approvals but explains that they are otherwise counted. This goes beyond the terse schema descriptions.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Audits the token approvals an address has granted') and immediately clarifies scope ('who may move its tokens'). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like explorer_token_balances or explorer_token_transfers, which list holdings/transfers rather than granted allowances.

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 gives clear triggering context (auditing the approvals an address has granted) and explains the from_block default and include_inactive switch. It does not, however, name an alternative sibling or state explicit when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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