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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable operational context beyond those: the tool returns an auditable receipt, requires no wallet or API key, costs $0.10 per call, and has a free daily quota. The references to seize, freeze, rebase, pause, and uncapped-mint are framed as checks aggregated into a verdict, not mutations, which is consistent with the non-destructive annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and get progressively operational. The pricing, free-call limit, and no-wallet/no-API-key details are useful for an agent deciding whether to invoke the tool. It is somewhat verbose and promotional ('The B20 tool to bind first'), but each sentence contributes meaningful selection or invocation context.

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 tool has a rich output schema and strong annotations, so the description does not need to explain return values. The description sufficiently covers when to use it, what checks feed the verdict, how to use the optional wallet parameter, and cost/authentication requirements. It is complete enough for correct invocation, though it could briefly mention the GO/HOLD/STOP semantics or point to a sibling for deeper checks.

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 schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage. The description reiterates that address is required and wallet is optional for checking blocked status, but it adds little meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the description does not need to compensate for missing schema documentation.

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 this is a pre-trade gate that produces a GO/HOLD/STOP verdict by aggregating multiple B20 risk checks (seize, freeze, rebase, pause, uncapped-mint). It communicates the resource (Base-native B20 tokens) and the core action (assessment before trading). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like b20_safety or pre_trade_gate, making it clear but not fully distinct.

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 provides explicit usage context: it is the call to make before touching a B20 token, and it should be the first B20 tool to bind. It also explains the optional wallet parameter for checking if the user is blocked. It does not mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives, so it stops shot of a 5.

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