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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotent=true, openWorld=true, and destructiveHint=false, so no contradiction. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the policy being checked, the seizable consequence, pricing, and that 'No wallet or API key required.' It doesn't describe response contents, but output schema is available to cover that.

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 behavior is front-loaded in the opening question and immediately explained in the next sentence. The pricing and free-tier information is extra but useful for agents handling cost-sensitive calls. The wording is a bit promotional but each sentence contributes either behavior, usage context, or prerequisites.

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?

Given annotations cover safety and an output schema exists, this description is complete enough: it states the tool's purpose, the use case, the relationship to b20-safety, required inputs, pricing, and access constraints. It doesn't explain the finer meaning of 'transfer-sender policy,' but that is an implementation detail rather than a blocker for selecting or invoking the tool.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% and already documents both 'token' and 'wallet' with types and descriptions. The description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond saying they are required inputs and framing 'wallet' as 'YOUR wallet,' so it doesn't significantly extend 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 uses a specific verb ('Checks whether') and a clear resource ('a B20 token's transfer-sender policy'), explaining what the tool does and the consequence of being unauthorized ('can't transfer and can be burnBlocked() (SEIZED) by the issuer'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling b20-safety by calling itself the 'personal companion' for checking 'MY funds,' so an agent can tell it apart.

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 explicitly positions this tool against b20-safety with 'The personal companion to b20-safety — can this token freeze MY funds?', giving clear contextual guidance for when to use it. It doesn't enumerate exclusions or contrast with other b20 siblings like b20_transfer_preflight, so it stops short of full when-not-to-use instructions.

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