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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering safety. The description adds valuable operational context: cost ($0.06 per call, prepaid credit header, 1 free call/day) and that no wallet or API key is required. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral details beyond them.

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 function ('What can drain this wallet...'), then gives the use case, then pricing and requirements. Each section adds value and the flow is logical. It's slightly longer than minimal but not verbose, earning a 4 for good structure without waste.

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 description covers purpose, use case, required input, expected output components (risk level, USD at risk, revoke recommendations), pricing, and access prerequisites. Given the one-parameter input and existing output schema, it's largely complete. The only minor gap is explicit mention that it operates on Base blockchain, but that's implied by the pricing mention.

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 has one required parameter 'address' with description 'Wallet address' (100% coverage). The description only restates that the address is required and refers to 'this wallet,' adding no new meaning beyond the schema. Per the rubric, high schema coverage yields a baseline of 3, and the description doesn't elevate it.

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 it pulls a wallet's active token approvals and writes a security audit with risk level, USD at risk, and revoke recommendations. It uses specific verbs and resources, and positions itself as the wallet-safety check before trusting an address, effectively differentiating it from sibling tools like token_approvals or approval_advisor.

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 frames the tool as 'The wallet-safety check agents and users run before trusting an address,' giving a clear use case. It also includes operational guidance on pricing and access (x402, prepaid header, free tier). However, it doesn't explicitly list alternatives or when NOT to use it, leaving some implicit differentiation.

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