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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description reinforces 'free, read-only' while adding useful context: the supported chain set, the returned delegate addresses, and the upsell link with its price. It does not cover rate limits or error behavior, but adds genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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?

One tight sentence with the key qualifier ('Free, read-only') front-loaded, followed by the chain list and return value. The chain enumeration is long but earns its place by defining scope; otherwise there is no wasted prose.

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 appropriately states what comes back (delegate addresses and a link to the paid report). Combined with the chain coverage and cost note, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though a brief note on empty/no-delegation results would make it fully complete.

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% and the single address parameter is fully documented with a hex pattern, so the baseline is 3. The description adds that the address is evaluated across Ethereum, Base, BNB Chain, Arbitrum, OP, Polygon, Gnosis, and Unichain, which gives meaningful scope context but no extra syntax or format detail.

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: checks whether an EIP-7702 delegation is set on an EVM address, and enumerates the supported chains. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling by pointing to the paid full report, so an agent can tell the free check apart from full_report_info.

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 makes clear this is the free, read-only check and explicitly mentions the paid full report at 0.01 USDC, which implies the alternative path. It does not state explicit exclusions or prerequisites beyond that, but the context is clear enough to choose correctly.

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