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

With no annotations, the description does carry useful behavioral context: the call is paid, the price, and the payment mechanism (x402). It stops short of explaining how payment is authorized/settled, what happens on payment failure, or whether the audit is read-only and side-effect free — significant gaps for a paid, wallet-touching operation.

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 dense sentence: purpose first, cost/payment mechanism in the parenthetical, then the distinctive detection capability. No filler, nothing to trim.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, cost, and the headline findings (active approvals, unlimited/unknown spenders) well enough to call correctly. The remaining gap is the payment flow and result shape, which no other structured field supplies.

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 coverage is 100%, so both the wallet format (0x + 40 hex) and the network enum with its default are fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond 'of a wallet', 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?

States a specific verb and resource: auditing active ERC-20 token approvals for a given wallet, plus unlimited/unknown spender detection. The scope is unambiguous, but it never contrasts itself with siblings like scv_scan or scv_wallet_risk, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 mention of a paid audit ($0.01 USDC via x402) implicitly tells the agent this is a cost-bearing call to reserve for approval-specific checks. However, there is no explicit 'use this when' guidance, no stated prerequisites (e.g. funded wallet), and no named alternative for other risk checks.

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