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

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent behavior, and the description adds useful details: it scans the wallet for protocol-level freeze/seize powers, checks whether the address is already blocked, and returns rebase flags. It also discloses pricing and authentication requirements, which are useful operational behaviors.

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 front-loaded with a clear question and purpose, and every major point—input, output, pricing, access—is covered. It is somewhat dense and includes marketing phrashes like 'the risk no ERC-20 portfolio tool can see', but it remains compact enough for an agent to parse quickly.

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 the single clean parameter, the readOnly annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool does, what input is required, what it returns, and the cost/auth model, with no critical gaps for invocation.

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 schema already fully documents the single 'wallet' parameter as 'Wallet address', and the description simply repeats that wallet is required. The description adds slight context by clarifying the wallet is the one under B20 risk evaluation, but it does not add meaningful detail 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('scans') and names the exact resource: a wallet's B20 holdings. It clearly defines the output as per-token freeze/seize/rebase flags plus a wallet-level verdict, making the tool's purpose easy to distinguish from generic portfolio tools.

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 clearly states when to use the tool: for agents holding Base positions who need B20-specific freeze/seize risk assessment. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough that an agent would not confuse it with a generic ERC-20 portfolio check.

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