hood. — .hood name service

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. The verb 'check' clearly indicates a read-only query rather than a registration or mutation action, and it discloses the two key outputs: availability and yearly price. It could be more explicit about having no side effects, but the wording already conveys a non-destructive lookup.

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 one compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the main purpose, states the resource type, and includes the secondary output without 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?

No annotations or output schema are present, so the description needs to explain both behavior and expected result. It mentions both outputs, availability and yearly price, which is enough for a simple check tool. The main missing piece is an explicit note about response format and a clearer comparison to sibling tools, but these are minor for this tool's complexity.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameter. It does this by identifying 'name' as a .hood name, which adds meaning beyond the raw string type in the schema. It stops short of giving format constraints (e.g., case, punycode, length), but it is sufficient for a single-parameter tool.

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 ... available to register') and the resource (a .hood name), and also names the second output (yearly price). This differentiates it from the sibling resolve/info tools, which focus on name details rather than availability for registration.

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 phrase 'available to register' implies the tool is meant to be used before registering a .hood name. However, the description does not explicitly mention alternatives or say when not to use this tool, so an agent gets lightweight context but no direct routing guidance relative to the sibling tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the categories of information returned, which is useful, but it does not mention behavior for unregistered names, whether the operation is read-only, or any data-source caveats. The picture is clear but partial.

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 entire description is one information-dense sentence with a colon-delimited list of fields. There is no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description does state the primary output dimensions, which is helpful. However, it leaves out parameter-format details and gives no explicit guidance for choosing among sibling tools. Reasonably complete but with noticeable gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does identify the single 'name' parameter as a '.hood name', but it gives no format detail such as whether the suffix should be included, case sensitivity, or how invalid names are handled. Basic meaning is present, but not full semantics.

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 identifies the resource (.hood name) and scope ('full snapshot'), listing the key output areas: resolved address, NFT owner, expiry, and availability. The word 'full' helps differentiate it from the more targeted sibling tools. It lacks an explicit verb like 'Gets' or 'Returns', so it stops just short of a top score.

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?

Usage context is only implied. A 'full snapshot' suggests this is the comprehensive option compared to check_availability or resolve_name, but no explicit when-to-use, exclusions, or alternatives are named. An agent has to infer that this is the right tool when multiple pieces of name state are needed.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a key behavior: returns null if unset. However, it does not mention any error behavior, whether the operation is read-only, or any limitations, which matters more in the absence of 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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The main purpose is stated first, and the return behavior is added as a simple second sentence. Every word contributes to the tool's usability.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the essential behavior: what it resolves, what it returns, and the null case. It does not describe the exact return format, but the purpose implies an address value. Given the low complexity, this is nearly complete.

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 schema already describes the only parameter fully, including example and suffix optionality. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema description coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb ('Forward-resolve') and clearly identifies the resource ('.hood' name) and outcome (the address it points to). It also distinguishes itself from reverse_resolve by making the direction of resolution explicit. This is unambiguous and separates it from its siblings.

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 clear usage: when you have a .hood name and need its address, use this tool. The 'Forward-resolve' wording implicitly contrasts with reverse resolution, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. Still, the intended context is clear for a simple lookup tool.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. Saying 'Read' implies a non-mutating operation, but the description does not address error cases, missing keys, name format, case sensitivity, or what the result looks like.

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?

One sentence with useful examples, no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It could carry slightly more detail, but as a compact definition it is well structured and easy to parse.

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 two-parameter read operation with no output schema and no annotations, this is minimally viable: an agent can likely attempt a call. However, return behavior, error handling, and the relationship to sibling tools are missing, so the description is not fully self-sufficient.

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 schema documents 'key' with an example but leaves 'name' undescribed, giving 50% coverage. The tool description partially compensates by explaining that the text record is set on a .hood name and giving key examples, but it still does not fully define the expected 'name' format or allowed key values.

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 states a clear action, 'Read a text record', and ties it to a specific resource, a .hood name, with concrete key examples. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like resolve_name or reverse_resolve, but the resource and action are identifiable enough.

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 intended use is implied: call this when you want to read text records stored on a .hood name. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over the sibling tools, nor any exclusion criteria.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does more than the bare minimum by explaining that the returned `verified` field is true only when the name's forward record points back to the address, which is non-obvious behavior. It omits edge-case behavior such as addresses without a primary name, but the core semantics are transparent.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a valuable clarifying detail about the `verified` field. Every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter lookup tool, the description covers the essential usage direction and the key return-field nuance. Since there is no output schema, a bit more detail about the expected return shape or what happens when no reverse record exists would improve completeness, but the current definition is adequate for correct invocation.

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 schema already documents the address parameter as 'A 0x wallet address.' The description adds that this address is reverse-resolved to a primary .hood name, but it does not add format, normalization, or validation details. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the heavy lifting.

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 specific verb ('reverse-resolve') with a clear resource ('an address to its primary .hood name'), immediately distinguishing this from forward-resolution siblings like resolve_name. It also clarifies the verified flag, making the tool's purpose unmistakable even with no title.

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 phrase 'Reverse-resolve an address' makes the intended input and direction clear: use this when you have a 0x address and want its primary .hood name. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is strong enough for an agent to route correctly.

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