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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it declares read-only behavior, pricing (0.01 USDC/call), a free trial limit (3/day/IP), and the exact 402 payment retry protocol. This is unusually rich context for invocation and error handling.

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?

Three sentences are front-loaded with pricing, then purpose, then the 402 retry procedure. The output-field list is dense but informative; no sentence is wasted, though it could be slightly more scannable.

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?

No output schema or annotations exist, so the description must carry safety, payment, and return-value context. It lists the audited outputs (spender, allowance, contract vs EOA, verified flag, drainable amount, drain-risk verdict) and payment flow, though it does not describe response structure or pagination.

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 75%, and the description clarifies the relationship between 'owner' and 'token' while explaining the otherwise undocumented 'payment' parameter as the payment transaction hash used on retry. It adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema, though the 'spenders' parameter is only covered by the schema 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?

States a specific verb ('audit') and resource ('ERC-20 approvals an owner granted for a token'), and names the exact scope (owner + token). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like token_scan or security_scan by focusing on approval exposure and drain risk.

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 explains the payment and retry flow but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as token_scan, security_scan, or liquidity_risk. No when-to-use conditions or exclusions are provided, leaving selection to inference.

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