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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already discloses the read-only nature. The description adds value beyond annotations by detailing the outputs (confidence-rated, comparable sales, narrative) and the methodology factors (e.g., fame-scaled pricing). No contradictions, and additional context helps the agent understand behavior.

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 three sentences (~80 words) with no filler. It front-loads the core action and then lists outputs efficiently. Every sentence adds value, making it 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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully explains the return values (value range, background, comparables, narrative). Combined with clear annotations and a simple input schema, the description is complete for confident agent 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for its single parameter 'name', describing it as 'ENS name or label to value (e.g., "coffee" or "coffee.eth")'. The description does not add new semantic details beyond this, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get a confidence-rated valuation for an ENS name.' It lists specific inputs (comparable sales, entity recognition, etc.) and outputs (estimated value range, background context, comparable sales data, narrative). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_name_details or check_availability, which focus on other aspects.

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 indicates 'Essential for pricing decisions,' implying the tool is used when a valuation is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid using it or compare it with alternatives (e.g., using get_name_details for basic information). A clear 'when-to-use' is provided, but no 'when-not-to-use'.

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