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

Annotations already cover the safe-read profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses pricing ($0.03/call over x402 on Base), the auth path (prepaid x-credit-token header, no free tier), 'No API key required,' and enumerates the verdict outcomes. This is exactly the extra context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded hook explains the threat before the mechanics, and the pricing/auth tail is genuinely useful. It is on the dense side and the rhetorical question plus the double reference to the designator add slight redundancy, so not a clean 5.

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?

With an output schema present, return values needn't be explained, yet the description still surfaces the verdict taxonomy, the required input, and the payment/auth model. Nothing an agent needs to correctly select and invoke this tool 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 description coverage is 100% and there is a single required param, so the schema already fully documents 'wallet: EOA address.' The description only restates 'Required input: wallet,' adding no format or semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 precise verb+resource: it reads the EIP-7702 designator, resolves the delegate, and verdicts it into named outcome classes. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by calling out that this drain surface is 'invisible to approval tools' and '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?

It establishes clear context for when this matters (an EOA carrying delegated code is a hidden takeover vector), and implicitly rules out relying on approval tools. However it never names a concrete sibling alternative nor states an explicit when-not condition, leaving the routing to inference.

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