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.