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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context by stating 'operation class read' and provides execution guidance about pricing (paid builder) and routing (estimate first, then pay). This adds behavioral detail beyond annotations, though some info is system-level.

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 starts with a clear purpose but then includes extensive SAP MCP execution guidance that is arguably boilerplate and not specific to this tool. While the first sentence is concise, the additional text makes it verbose. Could be more focused.

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 resolve tool with one parameter, output schema present, and comprehensive annotations, the description covers purpose, usage guidelines, and execution context. It lacks discussion of edge cases or error handling, but the output schema likely covers return format. Overall fairly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the parameter. The description simply rephrases the domain parameter as 'Full domain name (e.g. "myname.sol")' without adding new constraints or format details. Hence, the description adds minimal semantic value 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 tool resolves a .sol domain to its owner wallet address, using a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes itself from the sibling sap_sns_resolve_domain by noting that for SAP-linked domains, the sibling should be preferred because it returns SAP MCP-shaped context.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use to resolve a .sol domain through AgentKit SNS helpers') and when to prefer an alternative ('For SAP-linked domains, prefer sap_sns_resolve_domain'). This provides clear usage guidance, including exclusions.

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