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

Discloses that the tool returns a ready-to-sign transaction rather than sending it, reads the live current allowance from Base, flags unlimited or 'already revoked' states, and documents pricing/auth via the x-credit-token header. All of this is consistent with the readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint annotations. It adds substantial operational context beyond the annotations.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and packed with useful details about output, network, pricing, and auth. The first sentence is somewhat dense with dashes and parentheticals, but every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

Covers inputs, output shape, network (Base), pricing, auth header, free tier, and the division of labor with approval_advisor. An output schema exists, so detailed return-structure explanation is not required. Nothing material is missing for an agent to invoke this tool 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the required inputs (token, spender) and mirrors the schema's wallet description, adding little format or value detail beyond what the schema already provides. The mention of approve(spender, 0) shows the spender's role in the calldata, but that is a minor addition.

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?

States a specific deliverable: a ready-to-sign transaction (to + calldata) for approve(spender, 0), and explicitly contrasts itself with approval_advisor. Clear verb ('builds') and resource ('approval'). Distinguishes from sibling approval_advisor without needing to open 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?

Explicitly positions the tool as the execution counterpart to approval_advisor: 'approval-advisor tells you WHAT to revoke; this builds the HOW.' Also indicates the output should be handed to a wallet or agent signer, which signals the intended usage flow. It does not spell out explicit exclusion cases or alternative tools beyond approval_advisor, so it falls just short of a 5.

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