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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, and idempotent behavior. The description adds useful non-obvious context: $0.05 pricing, Base network scope, the prepaid x-credit-token header for unlimited calls, the one-free-call-per-day limit, and the fact that no wallet or API key is required.

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 core ranking behavior and returned queue are front-loaded, with cost and authentication details compactly appended. The opening phrase 'Which approvals could drain you — and revoke order —' is slightly awkward, but the rest is information-dense and avoids 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?

For a single-parameter, read-only tool, this covers the essential decisions: what it ranks, what it returns, how it is priced/authed, and which network it runs on. It does not spell out the exact return-team structure, but with no output schema present that is a relatively minor gap.

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 only parameter, address, is already described in the schema as 'Wallet address,' and the description merely restates it as required. With 100% schema coverage, the description adds no new parameter-level meaning 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?

The description is specific: it 'ranks a wallet's active token approvals' by a defined risk formula and 'returns a prioritised revoke queue,' so an agent can tell it is an approval-exposure advisory tool. It does not explicitly name and contrast a sibling, but the revoke-advice framing distinguishes it from execution-style tools like revoke_builder.

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 clear application context — 'Approvals are the #1 drain vector; this tells an agent exactly what to revoke first' — plus the required address input and cost/access model. It does not state exclusions or name alternatives explicitly, so it stops short of a complete routing guide.

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