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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds important behavioral details beyond annotations: it reconstructs permissions from approve/revoke events, flags unlimited allowance/no expiry/unrecognized spenders, and discloses pricing, the x-credit-token header, and the lack of API-key or wallet-connection requirements.

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 core question and behavior are front-loaded, with pricing and auth usage conveniently placed at the end. A little promotional phrasing ('agent-era drain check', 'ERC-20 approval tools can't see') is somewhat redundant but does not prevent an agent from quickly grasping the tool.

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?

For a single-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema, the description fully covers purpose, input, behavioral edge cases, cost, and authentication. Nothing critical is missing for selecting and invoking it 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% and the schema already documents the required 'wallet' parameter as a wallet address. The description repeats 'Required input: wallet' and clarifies no external API key is needed, but adds no format, validation, or network-specific 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 opens with a precise question and clearly states the tool's function: reconstructing a Base wallet's ACTIVE spend permissions from onchain approve/revoke events and flagging dangerous allowances. It distinguishes itself from generic ERC-20 approval tools by focusing on Base Account spend permissions.

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 gives clear context: use this when auditing which apps/agents can spend from a Base wallet via Base Account spend permissions. It contrasts itself with ERC-20 approval tools, implying the alternative class, but does not name a specific sibling or provide an explicit when-not-to-use list.

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