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

Discloses cost ($0.001), which is helpful. No annotations, so description should cover failure behavior and output format. It does not state what happens if the name is invalid or what the response 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?

Two sentences, no fluff. Front-loaded with the main action and key details (domain, network, cost). Every sentence adds value.

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?

Adequately covers purpose and cost for a simple one-parameter tool without output schema. Could mention error handling, but not essential given the straightforward operation.

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?

Single parameter 'name' has 0% schema coverage, but the description clarifies it is the Basename to resolve. Does not specify required format (with or without .base.eth), but overall meaning is clear from context.

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?

Clearly states the tool resolves a Basename (.base.eth) to a wallet address on Base. Verb 'resolve' and resource 'Basename' are specific, and the domain suffix and network are provided, distinguishing it from sibling tools like base_contract or base_token_info.

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?

Implied usage: use when you have a Basename and need the corresponding wallet address. No explicit alternatives or exclusions, but given the simple purpose, it's clear enough. Missing guidance on invalid names.

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