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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: sub-second real-time event capture, the distinction between status lookup and network feed, pricing per call, free-tier limits, and the fact that no wallet or API key is required. No contradiction with 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 dense and well front-loaded, with the core purpose first followed by usage modes, pricing, and auth requirements. Minor redundancy exists ('real-time... moment' + 'sub-second', 'network-wide' + 'across all of Base'), but every sentence contributes useful information.

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 single optional parameter with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description is fully sufficient. It covers invocation modes, network scope, event triggers, billing, auth, and free-tier access. There are no meaningful gaps that would prevent an agent from calling the tool correctly.

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 input schema already fully documents the optional address parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by clarifying that providing an address returns live guard status and omitting it returns the seizable-token feed. This goes slightly beyond the schema but does not specify address format or chain requirements.

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 a specific verb and resource: it delivers real-time alerts when a B20 token becomes seizable. It further distinguishes itself from the sibling b20_policy_watch by describing itself as the 'live layer' with sub-second webhook capture of PolicyUpdated/Paused events.

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 gives explicit usage modes: pass an address for live guard status, or omit it for the network-wide feed of tokens that just became seizable. It lacks explicit 'when-not-to-use' or alternative tool routing beyond referencing B20 Policy Watch, but the call patterns are unambiguous.

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