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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior. The description adds context beyond those fields: it explains what is read (supply cap vs minted supply and on-chain SupplyCapUpdated history), how uncapped mint is interpreted, and the x402 payment model including prepaid header and lack of a free tier.

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 and generally dense with useful information. However, some sentences are redundant with structured fields, such as 'Required input: address,' which the schema already announces, making it slightly less tight than it could be.

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 tool's read-only nature, single required parameter, existing output schema, and rich annotations, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. It covers purpose, sibling relationships, risk interpretation, and payment requirements.

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?

There is one required parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents that 'address' is a B20 token address. The description only says 'Required input: address,' adding no meaning beyond the structured 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 resource and action: mint headroom and dilution history for a B20. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting that b20-safety covers seizure and b20-control covers the mint role, so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

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 names the complementary sibling b20-safety, clarifies that this tool covers only the dilution half of rug risk, and recommends pairing with b20-control to see who holds the mint role. This supplies explicit when-to-use guidance and alternatives.

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