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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/destructive=false, and the description adds the important context that it reconstructs historical state from a privileged one-time window, costs $0.04, and requires no API key. It doesn't describe return structure or failure modes, but with annotations covering safety, this is solid.

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 dense but every sentence adds value: explains the niche window, what is reconstructed, verdicts, input, and pricing/auth. It is slightly long but the content justifies it; front-loads the unique value proposition.

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 one param with full schema coverage, no enums, and an output schema present, the description covers what the tool does, why it is unique, how to call it, and its cost/auth requirements. Nothing meaningful is missing.

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 single parameter 'address' is fully schema-documented as 'B20 token address'. Description reinforces what the tool does with that address. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 3, and the description adds meaningful context (what it inspects for that address), so 4 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?

States a specific verb ('reconstructs'), resource ('initCalls bypass window' of createB20), and deliverable ('token's true starting conditions', verdict categories). Clearly distinguishes from siblings like b20_config_audit or b20_mint_watch by focusing on the one-tx issuer-only window.

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?

Clearly explains what the tool analyzes and the verdict categories, and mentions pricing/auth model. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the narrow scope is implicitly clear; still, explicit exclusion of e.g. 'use b20_mint_watch for ongoing minting' would be stronger.

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