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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it scans actual on-chain seizure events, returns a three-state verdict, covers both single-wallet and network-wide modes, and discloses pricing/auth requirements and free-tier availability. No contradiction.

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 the core purpose and differentiator, then moves through the data source, verdicts, and usage. It includes extra details like pricing and API-key-free access, which are useful but slightly beyond the minimal invocation guidance. Overall, it is organized and every sentence adds context.

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 output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers what the tool does, how it differs from siblings, how to call it in both modes, what the verdict values mean, and important operational details like cost and free-tier usage. This is complete for an agent to select and invoke 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains the wallet and address parameters. The description adds extra meaning by explaining the wallet-scoped vs. network-feed modes and reiterates how to omit the address for a network-wide view. It does not add much beyond the schema, but it reinforces the key usage nuance.

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 opens with a clear, direct question—'Has this issuer ever actually SEIZED holders?'—and then defines the exact mechanism (scanning the BurnedBlocked event) and output verdicts. It also explicitly contrasts itself with 'every other B20 check,' making it easy to distinguish from 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 clearly tells when to use this tool versus other B20 checks: it reports what the issuer has actually done, not what it can do. It also provides concrete instructions for wallet-specific vs. network-wide calls. It does not name specific sibling alternatives, but the contrast is explicit enough.

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