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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the readOnly and idempotent annotations: it explains the 0xef0100 designator, delegate execution with wallet funds, the four possible verdicts, and the fact that this is a unique check among Base tools. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 dense and front-loaded with purpose and risk context. Pricing and header details add practical invocation context but are somewhat tangential to tool selection. Overall it is appropriately sized and structured for a single-parameter security check.

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?

Annotations cover safety/read-only traits, the input schema documents the only parameter, an output schema exists, and the description supplies purpose, unique value, verdict categories, required field, and auth/pricing constraints. Nothing necessary for correct selection or 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents 'wallet' as an EOA address. The description only repeats 'Required input: wallet' and adds no new constraints or formatting details, so it meets the baseline without adding much semantic value.

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 uses a concrete, domain-specific purpose: detecting EIP-7702 delegated code on an EOA and classifying the result into explicit verdicts. It clearly names the resource (wallet delegation) and distinguishes itself from siblings by claiming 'The drain surface no other Base tool checks.'

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 frames the use case as a security investigation ('Is this EOA secretly running someone else's code?') and states that no wallet or API key is required. It implies when to prefer this tool over approval-focused tools, though it stops short of naming alternatives or explicit exclusions.

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