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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly. It discloses specific behaviors: decoding selectors, flagging particular patterns (unlimited approve, setApprovalForAll, transfers to fresh/EOA, raw ETH sends, unverified targets), and returning a 'SIGNED ALLOW/REVIEW/BLOCK + human explanation.' It also states pricing and tiering.

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 compact yet dense, with each sentence earning its place. It fronts the core purpose, lists flags, specifies output, and ends with practical info (price/tier). No filler or repetition.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains return values ('SIGNED ALLOW/REVIEW/BLOCK + human explanation') and main usage. It covers parameters and safety patterns. It falls short of covering edge cases or error handling, but for a pre-sign analysis tool the core is 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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the parameter trio '(to, data, value)', noting that data can be omitted for plain ETH transfer, and that value is in wei. This goes slightly beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Universal pre-sign firewall' that 'decodes the 4-byte selector + args' and 'flags wallet-drain patterns.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning as the 'single highest-frequency safety gate' for any transaction before signing.

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 explicitly says to use it 'before your agent signs ANY transaction' and that 'every signed tx should pass through it,' giving clear context. However, it does not mention excluded cases or alternative tools (e.g., deeper audits), so it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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