AGT agent names

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 domain-specific behavioral detail by specifying that the result depends on registration, reservation, or grace status. It does not contradict the annotations and adds meaningful beyond-annotation context, though it stops short of describing all possible return 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?

One sentence with a clear main clause and a parenthetical giving exact false condition semantics. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool, the description covers purpose, input semantics via schema, and key result conditions. Since there is no output schema, an explicit 'returns true/false' statement would be slightly clearer, but the false-if phrasing adequately conveys the boolean nature of the response.

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 single parameter is fully documented in the input schema with type, length constraints, and the note that the .agt suffix is optional. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 for high schema coverage applies.

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 phrase ('Check whether ... can be registered') and clearly identifies the resource and evaluation criteria (.agt name, false if registered/reserved/in grace). This distinguishes the tool's purpose from sibling tools that likely resolve, manifest, or endpoint-check names.

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 the tool is for pre-registration availability checks and adds a temporal qualifier ('right now'), but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings such as agt_resolve or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the fallback from manifest to on-chain resolver, and the meaning of verification and manifest status fields. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core function, the second explains the resolution order, and the third disambiguates two important result fields. No fluff or repetition of schema content.

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 read-only lookup tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what is returned, how the data is sourced, and how to interpret edge cases. It could mention the exact shape of the response, but the absence of an output schema makes that a minor gap.

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 both parameters well. The description adds context about what the endpoint URL is used for and the pricing model, but it does not add new parameter-level detail beyond the schema. 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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('an agent's endpoint URL'), and the key dimensions (protocol and pricing model). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the manifest verification and resolver fallback behavior, which sets it apart from agt_resolve and agt_manifest.

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 explains the resolution strategy (prefers verified manifest, falls back to on-chain resolver) and clarifies the meaning of `verified: false` and `manifestStatus: "unavailable"`, which helps an agent interpret results. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when to use agt_resolve instead, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, and the description goes beyond them by disclosing the verification behavior and the response envelope (`untrusted` with `verified`, `manifestStatus`, `reasons`). This is meaningful context for a tool with no output schema, though it doesn't detail failure/error semantics.

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?

One dense sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then a parenthetical on the return wrap. No wasted words or repetition of schema/annotation content.

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?

With a single fully documented parameter, read-only annotations, and no output schema, the description provides the essential scope and response shape. The listed return fields compensate for the absent output schema, making the definition complete enough to call correctly.

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 documents the sole parameter with type, min/max length, example, and .agt suffix optionality at 100% coverage. The description adds nothing beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Fetch and verify'), a specific resource ('only the manifest document for a .agt name'), and the distinguishing 'only' scope. This differentiates it from sibling resolution tools without opening their schemas.

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?

Clearly frames the scope as 'only the manifest document,' which implies the narrow read-only use case and distinguishes it from siblings like agt_resolve by exclusion. However, it doesn't name an alternative explicitly or state when not to use it, so it stays at clear-context rather than full routing guidance.

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

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds the meaningful behavioral detail that no network access occurs. This clarifies that the tool performs pure local computation, which is valuable for distinguishing it from sibling tools.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and outputs while adding the key offline qualifier. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 deterministic tool with full schema coverage and comprehensive safety annotations, the description is nearly complete: it identifies inputs, outputs, and the offline nature. It does not specify the exact return shape, but naming the two computed values 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% and the schema already documents the only parameter, including the optional .agt suffix and an example. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond confirming the name format, so the baseline score of 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?

States a specific verb ('Compute'), a precise resource ('a .agt name'), and the exact outputs ('ENS-style node and ERC-721 tokenId'). The parenthetical 'no network access' also differentiates it from network-dependent siblings like agt_resolve or agt_endpoint.

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 gives clear context: this is an offline, deterministic computation, so an agent can infer it is for deriving identifiers rather than resolving or querying. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is strong enough for a simple one-parameter tool.

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

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses that a manifest is fetched and verified via a three-way signature check, and crucially labels manifest content as `untrusted` third-party data, never instructions. This safety-relevant behavioral context is not captured by 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 dense, front-loaded sentences deliver the action, the result set, and a critical trust warning with no filler. Every clause 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 read-only tool with rich annotations, the description adequately covers the returned data and the key trust behavior. It does not specify failure semantics for signature verification or explicitly position itself against agt_manifest, but an agent has enough to select and invoke it correctly.

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 single parameter `name` is already fully documented in the schema, including the optional .agt suffix. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names the exact operation (resolve), the resource (.agt agent name), and the target (AGT Registry v2), and enumerates the returned data. It is specific enough that an agent won't confuse it with namehash or availability checks, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with agt_manifest, which also touches manifests.

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 a lookup/read scenario and adds a trust caveat about manifest content. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools such as agt_manifest or agt_endpoint, nor does it name any exclusions.

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