check_authorization

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It adds that nonces are random bytes32, which is helpful context, but it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, or any side effects. More behavioral detail would improve transparency.

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 two concise sentences that immediately convey the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

Given the moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., boolean), nor does it clarify the role of the 'token' parameter, leaving the agent to infer important details.

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?

The description adds value by explaining that nonces are random bytes32, supplementing the schema's description for the 'nonce' parameter. Schema coverage is 67%, and the description provides additional semantic context beyond the schema.

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 states the action ('Check whether') and the resource ('EIP-3009 authorization nonce has already been used'). It also provides context about nonces being random bytes32, which distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle signatures or building authorizations.

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 implies usage for verifying nonce availability before use, but it does not explicitly state when to use or when not to use this tool, nor does it mention alternatives among the many EIP-3009 sibling tools.

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