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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is established. The description adds valuable context about the read behavior, optional filters (memo or caller), required address input, and operational details like pricing and no wallet/API key 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 reasonably concise and front-loads the core purpose, followed by the read behavior, filtering, use case, and access requirements. Some phrases (e.g., 'a field ERC-20 has no equivalent for') are explanatory color rather than essential, but most sentences earn their place.

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 a simple 3-parameter schema with 100% coverage, an output schema, and strong annotations, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: the required input, optional filters, the B20-specific use case, and the pricing/access model. There are no critical gaps for selecting or invoking 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema itself already explains the address, memo, and caller parameters. The description adds little beyond restating that an address is required and that memo is bytes32 and caller is a wallet — both already encoded in the schema. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 states a specific action and resource: it 'Reads a token's on-chain Memo event history' and clearly explains what B20 memos are for. It names the underlying primitive (transferWithMemo) and contrasts it with ERC-20, which helps distinguish this tool from the many b20_* siblings.

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 a clear use case: 'The settlement-reconciliation primitive for agents paying over B20 stablecoins.' This tells an agent when to select this tool. However, it does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it, so it lacks full exclusion guidance.

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