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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only lists what the tool detects (infinite approval, spending limits, dangerous functions) but omits whether it is read-only, requires special permissions, has rate limits, or returns any structured data. This is insufficient for safe agent automation.

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 one sentence and includes only necessary information (tool action and a pricing note). The pricing is somewhat extraneous but does not hinder conciseness. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 checks token approvals, a task that typically requires understanding of the return value (e.g., risk levels, list of approved spenders). No output schema exists, and the description does not explain what the agent should expect. The pricing note is unhelpful for functional completeness.

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%, yet the description adds no parameter details beyond the tool's purpose. The 'address' parameter is implied to be a token contract address but not explicitly stated, and 'api_key' is not described. The tool cannot be correctly invoked without guessing parameter formats.

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 the tool checks token approval risks, listing specific aspects like infinite approval detection and dangerous functions. The verb 'check' and resource 'token approval risks' are explicit, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like analyze_contract by focusing solely on approvals.

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 implies use for checking approval risks but lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives. No 'when not to use' or comparison with sibling tools like analyze_contract or analyze_solana_token is provided, leaving the agent without clear decision support.

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