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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it reads on-chain SupplyCapUpdated history, interprets cap raises as dilution, and flags uncapped mint as the worst case. This goes beyond the annotation signal without contradicting it.

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 key functionality is front-loaded and concise, with useful sibling context. The pricing and x-credit-token header details are relevant for invocation but slightly extend the description beyond what an agent needs for basic selection; still, the structure remains scannable.

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?

: The tool has one required parameter with full schema coverage, an output schema, and strong annotations. The description closes the remaining gap by explaining how to interpret the data, noting the base chain, and pointing to the complementary b20-control tool. Nothing essential 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 coverage is 100%, and the single parameter is already described as 'B20 token address.' The description repeats that an 'address' is required but adds no meaningful new format, constraints, or domain detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly names the resource and what it does: 'Mint headroom & dilution history of a B20' and 'Reads supply cap vs minted supply.' It further distinguishes itself from siblings by noting 'b20-safety covers seizure' and routing the mint-role question to b20-control.

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 explicitly frames the tool as 'the dilution half of B20 rug risk' and contrasts it with b20-safety's seizure focus. It also tells the agent to 'Pair with b20-control to see who holds the mint role,' which gives concrete orchestration guidance.

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