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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond those: it explains the failure mode the tool guards against, the verdict vocabulary, the pricing model, the prepaid header, the free daily call, and the fact that no wallet/API key is needed. No contradiction exists.

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 packs a lot of useful information into a single dense paragraph, including purpose, output, pricing, and access requirements. It is slightly florid at the start ('Bricked scopes, dangling policies, frozen lists') and mixes pricing into the behavioral description, but every sentence contributes actionable content.

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 audit tool with a rich output schema and clear annotations, the description is complete: it states the required input, enumerates the verdicts, highlights the key output flag, explains the real-world failure mode, and gives the authentication/billing context. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and call it correctly.

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 the schema already defines address as 'B20 token address'. The description only repeats 'Required input: address' without adding format, chain, checksumming, or example details, so it meets the baseline but adds no semantic value beyond the schema.

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 names a specific action ('Audits every policy scope for dangling bindings, ALWAYS_BLOCK, renounced lists and live pauses') and a concrete resource (B20 token configuration). It also differentiates the tool by naming its output verdicts and a distinctive 'can-this-token-even-move' flag, which separates it from sibling b20_* tools like freeze_check or policy_members.

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 usage context: 'Pre-launch lint for issuers, stuck-funds guard for holders and merchants.' It implies when to use the tool across the token lifecycle but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving some routing burden on the agent.

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