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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true (non-destructive) and openWorldHint=true (external state dependent). The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining the inherent limitation of gas token transfers (consuming the token to transfer it) and clarifying that it reports both what is stuck and what could be moved out. No contradictions.

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 yet informative: first sentence states the main purpose, then explains the problem, then states what the tool reports, and finally provides use cases. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The tool has one parameter and no output schema, but the description conceptually explains the output (reports what is stuck and what could be moved). For a tool of this complexity (scanning many chains for stranded gas), the description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand its function and expected results. A small deduction for not explicitly mentioning the output format (e.g., list of chains with balances).

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 schema has one parameter 'address' with a description 'Ethereum address (0x...)', and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond the schema, but it does contextualize the parameter within the tool's overall purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description adds no extra semantics for the parameter itself.

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 clearly states it finds leftover native gas tokens stranded across EVM chains and reports recoverable amounts. It uses a specific verb ('find') and resource ('stranded gas'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like zerodust_get_chains or zerodust_get_quote by its unique function.

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 explicit use cases: 'when a wallet has small amounts scattered over many chains, when someone cannot send their full balance, or before closing out, winding down or decommissioning a wallet.' It also explains why these balances are normally unrecoverable, giving clear context for when to invoke. However, it does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use, slightly reducing the score.

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