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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, it discloses the cost model ($0.03 per call over x402 on Base), the auth mechanism (prepaid x-credit-token header, no API key, no free tier), and the consequence semantics of a negative result (wallet can't transfer and can be burned/seized by the issuer). This is exactly the kind of auth, pricing, and outcome context annotations cannot carry.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, but the description is padded with marketing-style emphasis ('Is YOUR wallet...', '(SEIZED)') and the 'Required inputs: token, wallet' line duplicates the schema's required list. The pricing and auth lines do earn their place; the redundant input restatement does not.

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 two-parameter read-only check with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: what is checked, what a negative result implies, cost, and auth path. Return-value explanation is correctly left to the output schema.

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 both parameters are already documented ('B20 token address', 'Your wallet address'), so the schema carries the load. The description only restates 'Required inputs: token, wallet' with no added format, casing, or chain-qualification detail. Baseline 3 applies.

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: checks whether a given wallet is authorized under a B20 token's transfer-sender policy, plus the consequence (can't transfer, can be burnBlocked/seized). It differentiates from b20_safety by framing itself as the per-wallet 'my funds' companion, but does not distinguish itself from other close siblings like b20_gate, b20_transfer_preflight, or b20_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?

Provides clear context via the framing question 'can this token freeze MY funds?' and positions itself as the personal companion to b20-safety, implying the per-wallet counterpart to a token-level tool. No explicit when-not-to-use or named alternatives beyond b20-safety, so it stops short of a 5.

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