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.