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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description's main added value is the pricing disclosure (0.010 USDC on Base or Solana), which is genuinely useful context not in the annotations. It does not describe what the audit returns or the checks performed, so the disclosure is partial.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, with pricing appended as a distinct operational fact. No filler, though the pricing sentence could be considered ancillary to the tool's function.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required, and annotations carry the safety profile. However, the nested object with zero property descriptions leaves an agent without guidance on the expected domain/types/message contents, which the description does not fill.

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 0% for the single nested typed_data parameter, so the description must carry meaning. It does add value by naming the payload families (Permit, Permit2, transferWithAuthorization), which tells an agent what primaryType values are relevant, but it says nothing about the required domain/types/message structure.

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 names a specific verb (audits) and resource (EIP-712/EIP-3009 typed-data payloads), including concrete payload variants (Permit, Permit2, transferWithAuthorization). It stops short of distinguishing itself from the near-identically named sibling auditEip712SignaturePayload, so an agent cannot tell the two apart from text alone.

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 stated goal ('to block malicious spender approvals and phishing domains') implies a use case but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative. With a sibling named auditEip712SignaturePayload in the list, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

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