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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description goes further with cost and auth mechanics: $0.05 per call over x402 on Base, prepaid x-credit-token header for unlimited calls, no free tier, no API key required. It also explains what the verdict values mean (enforced / armed / no_seize_power), which is real behavioral context an agent needs before calling.

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?

Strongly front-loaded — a question hook, then the CAN/HAVE-DONE contrast, then the verdict semantics, then parameter usage and pricing. It is slightly dense and the pricing sentence packs several facts, but every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists so return-format detail isn't needed. Combined with annotations covering safety and the description covering purpose, parameter usage, verdict semantics, and payment/auth requirements, nothing essential for correct invocation 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('Victim wallet (optional)', 'B20 token (omit for network feed)'). The description's guidance on wallet= vs address= and omission largely restates that, giving only marginal added meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb and resource — scanning a B20 token's actual BurnedBlocked seizure events — and explicitly positions itself against the rest of the B20 family ('Every other B20 check reads what the issuer CAN do; this reads what they HAVE done'). An agent can identify it apart from siblings like b20_freeze_check or b20_control without opening the 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?

It gives explicit usage modes ('Pass wallet= for one address, or omit address= for the network-wide feed') and a clear differentiator against alternatives in the same family (CAN vs HAVE DONE). Both the when-to-use and the sibling distinction are stated rather than implied.

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