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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent/open-world profile, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: the sub-second webhook capture model, pricing ($0.05/call over x402 on Base), auth via prepaid x-credit-token header, no free tier, and no API key required. This is exactly the operational disclosure an agent needs.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the dual-mode usage and pricing each earn their place. The em-dash-heavy run-on construction is dense but not padded.

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?

Covers mode selection, real-time behavior, pricing and auth; an output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations carry the safety profile. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly 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?

With a single optional parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents the address. The description reinforces its meaning (address = live guard status; omission = network feed), adding modest behavioral clarity but little beyond 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?

States a specific verb+resource: real-time alerts when a B20 token turns seizable, explicitly positioning itself as 'the live layer over B20 Policy Watch.' An agent can distinguish it from b20_policy_watch, b20_freeze_check and b20_seizure_history without opening a 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?

Gives clear dual-mode routing: pass an address for live guard status, omit it for the network-wide feed of newly-seizable tokens. It names the sibling it layers over (B20 Policy Watch) but doesn't state when to prefer this vs. b20_freeze_check or b20_seizure_history, so exclusions are incomplete.

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