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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: no wallet/API key required, €0.06 pricing model, x402/x-credit-token payment behavior, and free tier. It also clarifies the output includes a revoke queue, which helps set expectations despite the output schema being present.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and includes useful details about pricing, auth, and usage. However, there is noticeable redundancy: the opening phrase, 'complete fund-movement authority', 'one drain-surface verdict', and 'only combined check' all convey similar positioning. A tighter edit would improve clarity without losing meaning.

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?

For a single-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema present, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the two audit surfaces, the use case, return concept, required input, pricing, and authentication expectations. It does not describe output fields in detail, but that is acceptable because the output schema exists.

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 already documents the only parameter `wallet` with 100% coverage. The description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning beyond clarifying the wallet is a Base wallet and that it is required, which is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 defines the tool as a combined audit of ERC-20 approvals and Base Account spend permissions, and states the output as a single drain-surface verdict with a revoke queue. It explicitly contrasts itself with approval-only and spend-permission-only tools, making its unique purpose unambiguous.

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 gives a strong usage cue: use this tool when an agent wallet must know its complete fund-movement exposure before holding funds. It also explains why approval-only and spend-permission-only tools are insufficient. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when NOT to use this tool in favor of a narrower alternative.

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