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

Annotations declare the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds substantial context beyond that: the payment model ($0.04 per call via x402 on Base), the x-credit-token prepaid header for unlimited calls, the explicit no-free-tier constraint, and the fact that no API key is needed. It also clarifies the semantic meaning of the bypass window and the verdict outcomes, which annotations cannot convey.

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 and the bypass-window framing are front-loaded, and the reconstructed artifacts plus verdict list are dense but informative. It is slightly run-on with em-dash chains, and the pricing/auth sentence is appended rather than integrated, but no sentence is pure filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value exposition is not required, and the description still enriches it by naming the verdict enum values. Annotations cover safety and the description covers cost and auth, leaving little an agent needs before calling. Only the absence of explicit sibling routing keeps it from a 5.

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 there is a single required parameter, so the schema already defines 'address' as a B20 token address. The description only restates 'Required input: address' without adding format, validation, or edge-case meaning. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (reconstruct/audit) and a precisely scoped resource: what the issuer did inside the initCalls bypass window, enumerating the artifacts recovered (pre-mints, role grants, policy bindings, blocklist seeding) and the verdict taxonomy. This is unmistakably distinct from near-siblings like b20_config_audit, b20_launch_radar, or b20_dossier without opening any schema.

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 frames the scenario well (the one-tx privileged window only the issuer gets) and names the required input, so the agent can infer when it applies. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this over b20_config_audit, b20_control, or b20_dossier, nor any exclusion criteria, so the routing decision is left to inference.

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