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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new operational context beyond annotations: $0.05 per call over x402 on Base, the prepaid x-credit-token header for unlimited calls, no free tier, and no API key required. It does not disclose rate limits or latency, but the payment/auth disclosure is substantive.

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?

Front-loads the purpose and the ranking formula before payment mechanics, which is the right ordering. The opening em-dash fragment ('Which approvals could drain you — and revoke order —') is slightly awkward and the pricing sentence is dense, but overall it is tight and each sentence carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values, and it correctly focuses on purpose, the ranking dimensions, the single input and the payment model. For a one-parameter read tool this is complete; only explicit sibling differentiation would push it higher.

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 100% and there is a single required parameter ('address'), so the schema already documents the input fully. The description merely repeats 'Required input: address', adding no syntax, format or validation detail beyond the structured field.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: ranks a wallet's active token approvals by USD-at-risk, unlimited-allowance and unlabelled-spender, and returns a prioritised revoke queue. This is clearly distinguishable from a raw listing or a revoke-transaction builder in principle, but it does not name the sibling tools (token_approvals, revoke_builder) it clearly overlaps with, so the differentiation is only implied.

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?

Usage is implied via 'tells an agent exactly what to revoke first', which gives a context for the tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to the closely related approval tools. An agent can infer intent but is not steered away from token_approvals or revoke_builder.

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