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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new context by stating no signature is required and that results can be caller-dependent. It does not describe failure behavior for unresolvable names or the return shape, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then two short supporting clauses — no wasted sentences. The 'Read-only' fragment mildly duplicates readOnlyHint, though 'no signature' keeps the clause from being purely redundant.

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 2-parameter, fully documented read tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns at a high level ('the account address') and the meaning of both parameters. Missing only edge behavior, such as what happens when the name is unregistered.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description earns an extra point by explaining the *purpose* of `caller` ('the account whose view to read (for caller-dependent results)'), which goes beyond the schema's terse 'optional account address (SS58) to run the query as'. `name` is left to the schema, which documents it well.

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 and resource: 'Look up the account address a Geode DNS name points to.' This is distinct from the sibling geode_dns_get_owner (which returns an owner) and geode_dns_set_address (a write), though neither sibling is named explicitly, so the agent must infer the routing from the name.

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?

Usage is implied — use this to resolve a name to the address it points to — but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to the nearest alternative (geode_dns_get_owner vs geode_dns_set_address). The caller hint gives partial context for when to pass a caller, but not when to pick this tool over a sibling.

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