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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that no wallet or API key is required and outlines the report's scope, which is consistent with a read-only operation. It does not contradict annotations and provides additional context about access requirements.

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 a single dense paragraph that mixes functional details with promotional language and pricing information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose but could be more concise by separating pricing/access details or trimming redundant phrasing.

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 thoroughly explains what the report includes (control powers, access model, supply cap, seizure history, verdict) and the output format is presumably covered by the existing output schema. It also notes the Base network requirement and pricing, which is complete enough for an agent to invoke 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?

The only parameter, 'address', is fully described in the schema as 'B20 token address'. The description merely repeats 'Required input: address', which adds no new meaning beyond the schema's coverage. 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 states it produces an institutional AI report on a Base-native B20 token, listing the specific components (seize/freeze/pause/mint powers, seizure history, etc.) and the final verdict. It explicitly distinguishes itself from ERC-20 tools, making the resource and action 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?

It specifies that this is the premium tier of the B20 suite and that no ERC-20 tool can produce it, implying it is the tool for comprehensive B20 due diligence. It does not name sibling tools or provide explicit 'when not to use' conditions, but the target token type is clearly scoped.

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