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.